analyzeConsecutiveProfitLoss

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool analyzes trades but doesn't describe what the analysis entails (e.g., statistical summaries, visual outputs, or specific metrics), whether it requires specific permissions or data availability, or any limitations like rate limits or data freshness. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear but narrow purpose, and it's front-loaded with the core action ('analyze') and target ('consecutive winning and losing trades'), making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (analyzing trade patterns), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis outputs (e.g., statistics, charts, or insights), how results are formatted, or any behavioral traits like error handling. For a tool that likely returns detailed trade analysis, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the three parameters (accountName, symbol, period), including their types, descriptions, enums, and defaults. The description doesn't compensate or add context, such as explaining how these parameters affect the analysis, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 'Analyze consecutive winning and losing trades' clearly states the verb ('analyze') and resource ('consecutive winning and losing trades'), but it's somewhat vague about what specific analysis is performed. It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyzePeriodicReturns' or 'calculateWinRate' by focusing on consecutive patterns rather than periodic returns or win rate calculations, but the distinction isn't explicitly articulated in the description itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyzeTradingPerformance' or 'calculateWinRate'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing trade data from the specified account, or exclusions, like whether it works for all trade types. Without any usage context, the agent must infer based on tool names alone.

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