get_trade_calendar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It helpfully enumerates the returned per-day metrics (PnL, trade count, win rate, R-multiple), but discloses nothing about read-only nature, permissions, data source, or timezone/date handling.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and efficient. The example questions are somewhat verbose but do earn their place by illustrating the tool's use cases.

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, the description's enumeration of return fields is the main source of return-value information and is adequate. Missing only behavioral details (read-only, permissions) that would round out a complete 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 description coverage is 100%, so the year/month parameters and their ranges are already documented. The phrase 'for a given month or year' slightly conflicts with the schema requiring both, but adds no format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get the trading calendar heatmap data') and states scope (a given month or year). It is clearly distinguishable from stats/notes siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

The example questions imply when the tool is useful (calendar views, per-day PnL, green/red days), which is more than nothing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., get_overview_stats or get_daily_notes) and no exclusions.

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