Performance statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, reducing the burden on the description. The description adds useful behavioral context: metrics are net of fees, and the time window defaults to the current trading day. No contradictions with annotations.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the key metrics and ends with a clear usage cue. No filler, no repetition of schema details, and every phrase contributes value.

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 compensates by listing the returned performance metrics. It also notes the default time window and fee adjustment. Minor gaps remain around timestamp interpretation and per-contract grouping semantics, but for a read-only statistics tool this is reasonably complete.

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?

Only accountId has a schema description (33% coverage), so the description must compensate for the undocumented startTimestamp and endTimestamp. It does add meaning by explaining the 'time window' concept and the default (current trading day), but it omits details like timezone handling or inclusivity. Partial compensation.

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 enumerates specific performance metrics—win rate, net P&L after fees, average win/loss, profit factor, expectancy—and clarifies scope as 'overall and per contract' over a time window. This clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes it from siblings like get_quote or get_bars, even without an explicit verb.

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?

'Use it to grade your own trading' provides clear contextual intent for when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the performance-statistics framing is distinct enough among the sibling tools to guide selection.

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