Trader Activity

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/annotations, the description reveals how the profile is assembled (userFills + userFunding + clearinghouseState), how limit affects analysis (max 500, newest-first), and flags that the win-rate metric is approximate ('win-rate-ish'). This is meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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 dense but efficiently organized: core purpose first, metric list, then limit semantics, then a usage example. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 output schema exists and annotations declare read-only/open-world behavior, the description adds the missing operational details: input semantics, max fill limit, data source composition, and an example. Nothing critical for calling this tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining limit's semantics and showing address usage with a concrete example. It could more explicitly define the address format and clarify defaults, but the example plus limit explanation covers the essential meaning.

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 opens with 'Trading profile for one address' and enumerates concrete outputs (closed PnL, fees, volume, fill count, per-coin breakdown, net funding, open positions), making the resource and action unmistakable. The address-scoped aggregate profile is clearly distinct from market-level siblings like market_overview, candles, and order_book.

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 clearly establishes that the tool is for a single address's trading profile and documents constraints such as limit capping fills at 500 newest-first. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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