analyze_trade_performance

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

Description adds behavioral details (FIFO matching, metric calculations) beyond annotations which already indicate read-only and idempotent. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences covering purpose and value proposition with 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?

Description lists expected outputs and explains methodology, sufficient for a read-only analysis tool without output schema.

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%, so description adds minimal value beyond optionality hints. 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?

Description clearly states the tool analyzes actual trade records using FIFO matching, calculates specific performance metrics, and distinguishes itself from backtesting and simple portfolio P&L analysis.

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?

Description implies when to use (for evaluating actual trade strategy effectiveness) and contrasts with portfolio P&L, but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance compared to sibling tools like backtest_strategy.

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