stats_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal that the tool returns a formatted card and how the format parameter changes output. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it depends on an existing account, or any side effects/requirements, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose comes first, followed by output content and the only parameter that needs elaboration. Every sentence adds information without repetition.

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 tool is simple enough that this is mostly adequate — output contents, format behavior, and sharing context are covered. The main completeness gaps are the undocumented account parameter and the lack of explicit read-only/non-mutating behavior, especially because no annotations are provided.

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?

The structure has 0% schema coverage, so the description must document parameters. It fully documents format with allowed values and their meanings, but account is only surfaced through the schema title and default; its meaning and effect are not described.

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 action ('Get a shareable stats card') and the resource (a formatted card showing ROI, Sharpe, win rate, and P&L). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like leaderboard_card or pk_card, so it misses the top score for sibling distinction.

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?

It establishes a clear context: producing a card ready to post on X, Telegram, Discord, etc., and lists the format options for those destinations. It gives no explicit 'when not to use' or comparison with alternatives such as share_content or leaderboard_card.

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