get_mae_mfe_stats

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 does disclose the analytical semantics of the output (excursion depth, exit efficiency framing), which is real added context, but it never states that this is a read-only computation, whether it touches live account state, or how heavy the call is. Adequate but leaving an avoidable gap.

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 tag and the core definition, then cleanly sectioned into best-for / not-for / examples. The four example questions are slightly redundant against the 'Best for' line but they earn their place as retrieval anchors; nothing else is wasteful.

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?

For an analytical read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage on inputs, the description covers purpose, alternatives, and interpretation. The remaining gap is operational: no default date window or guidance on what happens when all optional filters are omitted.

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% across all 5 optional parameters, so the schema already documents account, account_id, date_from, date_to, and market_type. The description adds no filtering syntax, default-window, or precedence detail (e.g. account vs account_id), so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 analysis resource and expands the jargon inline (MAE = drawdown while trade was active, MFE = peak unrealized profit before exit), then frames the interpretation ('leave money on the table' vs 'let drawdowns run too deep'). It explicitly names the siblings it is not (get_edge_by_direction, get_overview_stats), so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Ships an explicit 'Best for' block and a 'NOT for' block that names the two alternative tools and the conditions that select them. The four example questions map directly to likely user phrasings, which is unusually actionable routing guidance.

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