get_behavioral_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by specifying what it returns (aggregate stats like hold times, disposition ratio) and that it filters based on optional parameters. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or data freshness, which are important for a behavioral analysis tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and parameter explanations in a structured 'Args' section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, return values, and parameter usage. The output schema likely handles return value details, so the description doesn't need to explain those, but it could benefit from more behavioral context like data sources or update frequency.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics by explaining that 'strategy_name' and 'symbol' are filters, with 'Returns all if omitted' clarifying their optional nature. This goes beyond the schema's basic type definitions, though it doesn't detail format or constraints.

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 specific action ('Get behavioral analysis from procedural memory') and the resource involved ('aggregate trading behavior stats'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_strategy_performance' or 'get_trade_reflection' by focusing on behavioral metrics rather than performance outcomes or individual trade reflections.

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 implies usage through the mention of filtering by strategy_name or symbol, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_strategy_performance' or 'recall_similar_trades'. No guidance is provided on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the context somewhat open-ended.

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