get_spread_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies read-only ('Get detailed breakdown') and mentions specific metrics (win rate, Calmar ratio), but does not disclose potential side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. Adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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: first states purpose and outputs, second gives usage guidance. Very concise, front-loaded, and no wasted words.

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 tool with 4 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and key metrics shown. It lacks output format details but compensates by listing metrics. Slightly incomplete regarding error conditions or permissions, but sufficient given context.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces breakdown options by explaining 'path (source→sink)', but adds little beyond schema descriptions for other parameters. It does not add new parameter-specific meaning.

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 starts with 'Get detailed breakdown of spread trading PnL by path, book, or book+path', providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_flow_analysis by focusing on spread trading PnL breakdowns.

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 states 'Use this when asked about specific paths, books, source/sink pairs, or route-level performance', providing clear context for when to use. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the sibling list implies alternatives.

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