show_thesis_track

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

No annotations are provided, but the description clearly indicates this is a read-only review tool by using verbs like 'review' and 'returns'. It describes the output fields in detail, including outcome labels and coverage_pct, which helps the agent understand what to expect. However, it doesn't explicitly state that no data is modified.

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 description is a single paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and includes important usage details. It is concise but covers all necessary aspects, though it could be slightly shorter by combining sentences.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return fields (buy price, current price, days held, price change %, still held, outcome label, coverage_pct). It also provides usage context and guidance on encouraging user to add reasons, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

All three parameters (ticker, limit, display_currency) have descriptions in the input schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds context about portfolio-wide review when ticker is omitted and mentions coverage_pct in output, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves.

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 a specific action ('Review past trades that have a recorded reason') and resource (thesis trades), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like show_portfolio or show_txns. It explicitly states the tool evaluates theses, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 explicit usage examples ('did my last trade work', 'what's the track record of my AAPL theses') and guidance on when to use it (reasoning about a new buy). It also gives advice on interpreting coverage_pct, helping the agent decide when to prompt the user.

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