util_win_rate

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses the input format but does not mention edge cases (e.g., empty trades, WIN/LOSS counts), error behavior, or the structure of the output (e.g., whether it returns a single number or multiple stats). This is insufficient for a calculation tool.

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 a single sentence that conveys the purpose and input format. It is efficient and front-loaded, though it could be structured into two sentences for clarity (purpose then input). 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 the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides the essential information (what it calculates and what input is needed). However, it does not specify the output format or any constraints (e.g., minimum trades, handling of zero pnl). Adequate but not thorough.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter 'trades' with 100% description coverage. The description adds the tool's overall purpose (calculating win rate and profit-loss ratio) but does not elaborate on the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. 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 clearly states the tool calculates trading win rate and profit-loss ratio, specifies the required input format as an array of trade records with result and pnl fields. The sibling tools include various utilities and indicators, making this distinct as a win rate calculator.

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 description implies the tool is used for calculating win rate and profit-loss ratio from trade records, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus other utilities like util_sharpe or util_calmar. No exclusion or alternative context is provided.

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