stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get performance analytics' without explicitly indicating if the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, requires authentication, or has any limitations. While 'Get' implies a read, this is not made explicit, and no other behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the core operation, and contains no redundant or filler content. Every word earns its place, making it an exemplar of conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which means return values need not be described), the description omits any explanation of the 'account' parameter and provides no context relative to the many sibling tools. An agent cannot reliably determine when to use this over stats_card or portfolio, nor what to pass for a non-default account. The necessary context for correct invocation is incomplete.

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 'account' parameter at all. The parameter remains completely unexplained in both the description and the schema, leaving the agent without any clue about what values are valid or what the default 'default' refers to.

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 operation ('Get performance analytics') and enumerates specific metrics (win rate, ROI, profit, max drawdown), making it distinct from sibling tools like portfolio, history, and get_balance. It is a specific verb+resource statement that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisite conditions, or indicate that certain sibling tools (e.g., stats_card, portfolio) might be more appropriate in specific scenarios. The agent is left to infer usage from the description alone.

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