get_pnl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job: it discloses the average-cost method, data source priority (local vs live API), and specific limitations (fully-sold positions hidden without local data, only non-zero balances visible otherwise). This goes well beyond minimal expectations.

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 appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains methodology, outputs, and data-source nuances without redundancy. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

The description thoroughly covers computation method, outputs, and data-source behavior, which is especially important given no output schema or annotations. However, the unexplained 'quote' parameter is a gap that prevents a perfect score.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the 'quote' parameter at all. With only one parameter, the description should at least clarify its purpose (e.g., filter by quote currency). This is a significant omission.

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 computes profit & loss per asset using the average-cost method and lists the specific outputs. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining its methodology and data source, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: when you need per-asset P&L with cost basis, including realized P&L from fully-sold positions if local data is imported. It references sibling tool import_transactions as a prerequisite for complete coverage, though it does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid.

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