get_edge_by_direction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It does explain the analytical outputs and bias-detection purpose, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or how data scope defaults are handled.

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 front-loaded with scope and metrics, then structured into Best for, NOT for, and examples. The example block is somewhat long with five examples, but it is still useful for query matching and does not bury the core purpose.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lists the key returned metrics and the analytical purpose, which is enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns. It is slightly incomplete on default date/account behavior and exact response shape, but the parameter schema covers filtering inputs.

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 the five parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 comparison task: LONG vs SHORT trade performance, with named metrics (win rate, average PnL, profit factor, total count). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from a sibling by saying it is long/short only and not for asset-class comparisons.

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 explicit 'Best for' guidance, an explicit 'NOT for' exclusion, and names the alternative tool to use instead: get_edge_by_market. The example questions further anchor when to select this tool.

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