research_trade_statistics

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world calculation. The description adds useful context about explicit zero-loss handling, but it does not describe the return format or how edge cases like all-winning/no-loss inputs are represented.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It names the calculation, the input source, and the notable zero-loss edge case efficiently.

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 one-parameter calculation tool this is adequate but incomplete: it names the metrics but not the result object shape, and without an output schema it leaves return-value structure and detailed zero-loss behavior implicit.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It identifies the lone parameter as caller-supplied net trade P&Ls, which is helpful, but it does not specify sign convention, currency/unit assumptions, or whether zero-P&L trades should be included.

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 states a specific verb and resource: calculate win/loss counts, expectancy, and profit factor from net trade P&Ls. It is clear what the tool produces, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as research_equity_metrics or strategy_get_report.

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?

Usage is implied by the requirement for caller-supplied net trade P&Ls, which tells an agent when the tool is applicable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for computing related portfolio or strategy metrics.

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