get_performance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits. It doesn't confirm this is read-only (implied by 'Get' but not stated), doesn't explain what 'aggregate' encompasses (time periods? metrics?), and omits that results may vary based on trade history availability.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Appropriately concise with clear structure. The one-sentence purpose statement followed by the Args block is efficient, though the docstring-style formatting ('Args:') is slightly programmatic compared to natural language descriptions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Adequate for a single-parameter tool with an output schema (which excuses return value documentation). However, it should mention the default value ('shadow') in the description for visibility, and could clarify the relationship between 'performance' and the 'shadow'/'live' distinction given the existence of 'place_shadow_trade' and 'report_trade' siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage. The Args section clearly explains the 'mode' parameter semantics: 'shadow' for paper trades vs 'live' for real trades. It successfully documents the business meaning of the parameter values that the schema fails to describe.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'aggregate trading performance statistics' using the specific verb 'Get'. However, it doesn't fully distinguish from siblings like 'get_portfolio' or 'get_strategy'—it mentions 'aggregate' but doesn't clarify if this returns metrics like P&L vs. current holdings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_portfolio', 'report_trade', or 'get_strategy'. The Args section only documents the parameter syntax, not usage scenarios or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.