Fund Position Performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the auth requirement and the parameter's upstream source, which is real added context, but says nothing about rate limits, result shape, or how performance is measured. Useful but not rich.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: action first, then auth, then where the id comes from. It is arguably terse to the point of omitting useful context, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the essentials (auth, id source) are present. Since there is no output schema, the description could profitably say what the performance figures contain, and it omits any routing against the numerous sibling performance tools.

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 both parameters (including the _jq filter) are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only mildly supplements this by naming fund_position_overview in addition to the fund_hot/fund_list sources cited in the schema, adding little beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a held fund's performance figures'), and the phrase 'held fund' scopes it to positions rather than a market-wide fund lookup. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as fund_position_profits or fund_performance, leaving some ambiguity about which performance view is the right one.

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?

'Requires auth' is a concrete prerequisite, and the counter_id provenance points the agent at sibling tools (fund_position_overview / fund_hot / fund_list) where the id can be found. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over the many other fund/position performance siblings, so usage is only implied.

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