Fund Position Profits

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things annotations don't: the tool requires authentication and the response is paginated, which affects how an agent must call it. It does not describe the profit fields returned, but that gap is modest given the 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?

Three short telegraphic sentences; the core purpose is front-loaded and each following clause adds distinct operative information (paging, auth, parameter sourcing). 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 6-parameter read-only tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what it returns, that it is paged, that auth is needed, and where the required id originates. The only gap is the mild discrepancy over counter_id sources.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds provenance for the required counter_id (from fund_position_overview for held positions), which the schema does not state — though this slightly conflicts with the schema's own note naming fund_hot / fund_list as sources. The start/end/page/size recap is redundant but harmless.

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 — retrieving a held fund's cumulative-profit detail — and flags that results are paged. It is distinguishable from adjacent siblings like fund_position_performance or fund_position_dividends by the 'cumulative-profit detail' phrasing, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Gives real invocation context: an auth requirement and, critically, that counter_id comes from fund_position_overview, which tells the agent what to call first. There is no when-not or alternative-sibling guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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