calculateWinRate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'calculate' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the output format looks like, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves, especially for a tool that likely involves data analysis.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and understand the core function.

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 (involving calculations for win rate and profit metrics), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the output includes (e.g., specific metrics, format) or any behavioral aspects like data sources or computation methods, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'accountName' relates to configuration or the implications of the 'period' options. Thus, it meets the baseline score without compensating for any gaps.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('win rate and profit metrics'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'analyzeTradingPerformance' or 'analyzePeriodicReturns', which might offer similar functionality, so it misses the highest score.

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, such as the sibling tools 'analyzeTradingPerformance' or 'analyzePeriodicReturns'. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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