get_overview_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only analytics operation and lists what metrics are returned, but does not state whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or how it aggregates across accounts. It gives a reasonable picture but lacks deeper behavioral context like pagination (not applicable) or caching.

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 the core purpose, then usage guidelines, then example questions. Every sentence earns its place: the metric list is compact, and the example questions are directly useful for matching user intent. No wasted words.

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 is fairly complete for an analytics tool: it specifies the metrics returned and clearly routes to sibling tools. The main gap is lack of behavioral details about how the tool works (e.g., does it require an account context, does it default to a time range?). However, for a read-only summary tool with fully documented parameters, this is sufficient.

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 all five parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (Get) and resource (high-level trading performance KPIs) and enumerates the exact metrics returned (win rate, PnL, profit factor, etc.). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming direction comparison, market comparison, and exit timing as different tools.

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?

Explicitly says 'Best for: High-level overview or summary scorecard' and 'NOT for: Direction comparison (use get_edge_by_direction), market comparison (use get_edge_by_market), or exit timing (use get_mae_mfe_stats).' This is textbook when/when-not with alternatives named.

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