leverage_picks_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so well. It explains how picks are automatically saved, the win/loss outcome resolution formula, that records are permanent, and that results are cached for 30 minutes—details that go well beyond a typical tool description.

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 opening is front-loaded and informative, but the second sentence ('Aggregate accuracy statistics...') is largely redundant with the first. The remaining behavioral details—saving cadence, outcome rules, permanence, caching—earn their place, so the redundancy is the main structural flaw.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must convey what the tool returns; it names the core statistics: win rate, avg return, and total pick counts. It also covers key operational context like the 30-minute cache and Pro-only full pick list. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact response shape, but for a zero-parameter summary tool the essentials are present.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so parameter-level documentation is not needed; baseline 4 applies. The description adds contextual meaning about what the returned statistics cover, though no parameter-specific semantics are required.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves Leverage Radar pick accuracy summary—historical win rate, avg return, and total pick counts. The repeated 'Aggregate accuracy statistics...' reinforces that this is a summary resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like leverage_radar that likely provide current or detailed pick data.

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 clear context: it is a historical accuracy archive for Best Trade Now picks, with a 30-minute cache and Pro-only full pick list. It does not explicitly name when to use this tool instead of alternatives like leverage_radar or leverage_history, but the use case is strongly implied by the summary-focused wording.

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