get_pnl_analysis

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals the tool combines two data sources and outputs a breakdown, but doesn't disclose whether it's a read-only query, any prerequisites (e.g., historical data availability), or refund/rate limit constraints. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('P&L analysis combining...') and includes key details (by exchange, daily breakdown). 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?

No output schema, but description adequately explains what is returned (net profit/loss, daily breakdown, by exchange). Parameters are simple (period, exchange filter). For a moderately complex analysis tool, this provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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% with clear parameter descriptions (period options listed, exchange filter). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is 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 clearly states the tool performs P&L analysis combining trading fees and funding income, showing net profit/loss by exchange with daily breakdown. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_funding_analysis (which likely focuses solely on funding) and get_balance (balance vs P&L).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_funding_analysis or get_positions. The description only implies it for net P&L overview, lacking when-not or alternative recommendations.

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