get_fee_leakage

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 discloses what is computed and how it is grouped, but never states that this is a read-only/non-mutating operation, nor anything about permissions, default windows, or result size. Adequate disclosure of intent, but missing the safety/behavioral framing an unannotated tool needs.

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?

Front-loaded with a bracketed category tag, then purpose, then 'Best for', then examples — a sensible priority order. The example questions are somewhat repetitive but each maps to a distinct use case, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to carry the load, and it does state the computed dimensions (commissions, swap, slippage, spread by instrument and market). It omits default date-range behavior and return shape, which are the remaining gaps for a fully self-contained definition.

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%, so all five filters are documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description only echoes the market-type grouping dimension and adds nothing about the account vs. account_id distinction or date-window defaults.

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?

States a specific verb (audit) and resource (trading cost leakage: commissions, swap fees, slippage, spread), plus the aggregation scope ('across all trades, broken down by instrument and market type'). This clearly separates it from sibling analytics tools like get_edge_by_market or get_mistake_audit.

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?

'Best for: Identifying fee drag, broker costs, swap penalties, and spread leakage' gives clear intended-use context, reinforced by four example questions. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead (e.g., vs. get_overview_stats for general PnL), so it is strong context without explicit alternatives.

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