Get performance stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious context: it reads the local account but 'prices positions live', which hints at network I/O and possible latency not conveyed by the annotations. It stops short of stating latency or rate-limit behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the metric list and the routing guidance. 'Changes nothing' is mildly redundant with readOnlyHint, which keeps it from a 5, but nothing else is wasted.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it names the metrics, the account scope, the live-pricing behavior, and the two alternative tools. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single 'account' parameter is fully documented in the schema (naming rules, default). The phrase 'one account's' only implies the parameter, adding no syntax or naming detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') plus the exact resource ('one account's raw performance numbers') and enumerates the metrics returned (win rate, ROI, profit, Sharpe, max drawdown). It also names the two sibling tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use this for analysis, stats_card for a postable text card, or leaderboard_entry for the ranking record.' The when-to-use and the alternatives with their distinguishing conditions are all present.

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