Beregn kryptogevinst/-tap (FIFO)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and thoroughly discloses behavior: FIFO method, per-currency grouping, no adjustments, flat 22% tax, loss deductibility, and output details (per-sale breakdown, totals, remaining lots). No contradictions.

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?

The description is a single paragraph of 4 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds essential information (method, multi-currency, tax rules, output) with no filler.

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?

Given the complexity and lack of output schema, the description provides a good overview of outputs and tax implications. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the tool's purpose is clear enough for an agent to select correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description adds value: it explains that rapporteringsaar defaults to 2025 and affects FIFO history but not reported totals, and that transaksjoner supports multi-currency. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 it calculates realized crypto gain/loss per currency using FIFO, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like calculate_aksjegevinst (stocks) and calculate_boliggevinst (housing) by focusing on krypto and FIFO method.

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?

The description implies usage for crypto transactions but does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternatives. However, sibling tools are for other asset types, making the context clear enough.

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