get_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only reporting operation through its metric list and 'get' name, but does not explicitly disclose read-only behavior, authentication requirements, scoping limits, or other behavioral traits.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the metrics returned. It is efficient, though its telegraphic style leaves some clarity on the table.

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?

The output schema exists and all five parameters are optional and fully documented in the schema, so the description is sufficient for invocation. However, with no annotations and no sibling differentiation, it does not fully establish when or why to choose this reporting tool over adjacent ones.

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 100%, so parameter meanings are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only a high-level hint about optional dimensional breakdown corresponding to group_by, which is appropriate but not substantial 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 concretely lists the performance metrics returned (win rate, P&L, profit factor, expectancy, R, drawdown, streaks) and notes optional dimensional breakdowns. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_instrument_breakdown or get_behavior_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?

It gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives in the sibling set. The only usage hint is that results can be broken down by dimension, with no exclusions or selection criteria.

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