Retrieve daily P&L for every trading day in a month, plus weekly totals and a monthly summary; specify YYYY-MM or default to the current month.
Daily P&L for a month (trading days only), weekly totals and the month summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| month | No | YYYY-MM, defaults to the current month |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral load itself. 'Daily P&L' and 'trading days only' imply a read-only report and disclose that non-trading days are excluded, but the description never states that it is side-effect free, what happens on empty months, or whether it's scoped to a user/account. Adequate but thin for a zero-annotation tool.
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?
A single compact line that front-loads the primary payload (daily P&L) before secondary aggregates. No wasted words, though the sentence fragment style leaves the read/query nature implicit.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. What remains missing is the read-only confirmation and any routing hint relative to the many sibling report tools, which matters given the crowded namespace.
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%, with the schema already documenting the YYYY-MM format and current-month default. The description adds nothing about the month parameter, so the baseline 3 applies even though the 'trading days only' note usefully frames how the month is interpreted.
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 names the resource ('calendar') and specifies the exact content returned: daily P&L per trading day, weekly totals, and a month summary. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with get_performance or get_instrument_breakdown, but the output shape is distinct enough that an agent can identify it.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus get_performance, get_instrument_breakdown, or get_coaching_context. The only usage hint is the implicit default month from the schema, so the agent must infer the triggering scenario (e.g., 'show me my daily P&L for March').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.