analyze_trade_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses that it fetches live data if 'deals' is omitted, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it mention any side effects.

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 efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key behavioral note. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could benefit from more structured formatting.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the tool description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, date formats, error handling, or provide enough context for an agent to use the tool reliably.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving three parameters undocumented. The description partially compensates by explaining the behavior when 'deals' is omitted (fetched live), but it does not clarify the date parameters or the structure of 'deals'.

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 verb 'compute' and the resource 'history deals', listing specific metrics like win rate, profit factor, and averages. It also mentions the conditional live fetching behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools that might analyze different aspects.

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 implies usage for computing trade history metrics but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate_profit or calculate_profit_risk_basic. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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