wallet_get_performance_chart

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses output format (markdown) and conditional logic, but omits side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or read-only nature. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 purpose, conditional behavior, and output format without wasted words. It is front-loaded and earns its space.

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 complexity (8 params, conditional logic, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks explanations for most parameters, does not describe return structure beyond markdown, and omits error conditions or prerequisites. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the 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?

The input schema has 8 parameters with only 25% description coverage (maxPoints, maxTokens). The description adds no parameter details, leaving the agent to interpret names like 'showHistoricPnL' without guidance. With low schema coverage, compensation is needed but missing.

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 tool builds an embeddable wallet PnL chart markdown, specifying it shows history when available or summary/token PnL bars otherwise. This distinguishes it from sibling chart tools like wallet_get_holdings_chart or wallet_get_portfolio_chart.

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 graphical performance views with conditional logic based on history availability, but it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use this tool. The agent must infer context from the name and description.

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