Trading performance metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that – no note on data freshness, whether results are live vs. simulated, or how market/period interact. It essentially only lists output fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the comma list of metrics is somewhat dense and could be organized, keeping it short of a 5.

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, the description's enumeration of returned metrics is genuinely useful and partially compensates. However it omits scope (account-level? all accounts?), grouping, and any usage context, so it is only minimally adequate for a four-parameter analytics tool.

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 100%, so all four parameters (from, to, market, period) are fully documented in the schema, including enum values and the 'do not combine with from/to' constraint. The description adds no parameter detail, which is acceptable given the schema does the work.

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 says it returns performance statistics and enumerates them, which conveys the resource. But it never states scope or verb precisely, and with siblings like get_portfolio_performance, get_realized_returns and get_closed_trades all plausibly overlapping, an agent gets no help telling them apart. Vague purpose rather than a distinguishing statement.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance at all. Nothing indicates whether this covers a single account, all accounts, or how it relates to get_portfolio_performance or get_realized_returns.

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