Per-symbol signal performance and recent trades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which sets the safety baseline. The description adds value by specifying the data source ('live verified track record'), the market type ('Binance USDT-M perp'), and the timeframe windows (30/90/180 days), giving the agent crucial context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the invocation trigger. Every clause provides useful information: when to call, what to return, data source, and scope. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with thorough schema descriptions and read-only annotations, the description is complete. It covers output metrics, recent closed signals, the trading venue, and the lookback window. Since there is no output schema, the description adequately explains return value semantics.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter details (e.g., symbol format and window_days allowed values/default). The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides; it merely restates the window options and coin scope. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: reporting per-symbol signal performance (win rate, profit factor, net PnL, best/worst trade) and recent closed signals for a specific coin. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'specific coin' and 'one Binance USDT-M perp', contrasting with tools like get_recent_signals.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance ('Call this when the user asks how signals performed on a specific coin...'). It gives clear context and even a second use case (recent closed signals). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use, 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.