Portfolio performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful detail about what portfolio data is returned, but it does not disclose permission or wallet requirements, selector behavior, or whether some fields require API-wallet context.

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 listing the key returned metrics, with no filler. It is somewhat dense but still readable and appropriately sized for a read-only portfolio summary.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the returned performance dimensions. However, it leaves gaps around selector behavior, the role of history_points, and how the three account lookup parameters interact, which matters for a tool with four parameters and multiple lookup modes.

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 high at 75%: account_id, sub_account_id, and wallet_address have descriptions, while history_points has bounds and a default but no textual schema description. The description mentions a recent account-value curve but does not explain that history_points controls its length, so it adds only marginal parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 resource and scope: long-run portfolio performance with realized PnL, volume, fees, deposits/withdrawals, fee tier, staking discount, and account-value curve. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like strike_get_account or strike_get_history, but the returned data set is specific enough for an agent to understand its purpose.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as strike_get_account, strike_get_positions, or strike_get_history. It also does not explain when to prefer wallet_address, account_id, or sub_account_id lookups.

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