calculate_profit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses behavioral traits: requires approval, restricted to demo accounts, and never sends an order. This adds valuable context beyond the schema, though it does not detail side effects or return behavior.

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 one concise sentence plus three key phrases. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words, but added structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability for multiple constraints.

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?

With no output schema, 5 undocumented parameters, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the calculation returns, what units are used, or how parameters interact. The agent lacks critical context to use this tool correctly.

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% (no parameter titles have descriptions). The tool description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (symbol, volume, order_type, price_open, price_close). Without compensation, the agent has no guidance on parameter values or constraints.

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 states 'Calculate hypothetical profit/loss between two prices', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'calculate_margin' and 'analyze_drawdown', but could be more precise about what 'hypothetical' entails.

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 provides important usage constraints: 'Requires approval; demo accounts only; never sent.' This tells the agent when to use (demo accounts) and that no real order is sent. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'calculate_profit_risk_basic'.

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