get_strategy_performance

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 mentions the tool retrieves 'aggregate performance stats' but doesn't specify what those stats include, whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns paginated results. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential complexity.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and parameter details. It's efficient with no wasted sentences, though minor improvements in flow could push it to a 5.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and no annotations, the description covers the basics: purpose, usage, and parameters. However, for a tool with potential complexity in performance stats, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like data scope or limitations, making it minimally adequate.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics by explaining that 'strategy_name' and 'symbol' are optional filters (with defaults to return all if omitted), which clarifies their purpose beyond the schema's basic types. This is helpful, though it could detail format or examples for a 5.

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 ('Get') and resource ('aggregate performance stats per strategy'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (like 'get_behavioral_analysis' or 'get_trade_reflection'), which would require a 5.

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 implied usage guidance ('Use this to evaluate which strategies are working and which need adjustment'), which gives context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use vs. 'get_behavioral_analysis'), keeping it at a basic level.

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