agent_pnl_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description clearly declares read-only status, authentication requirements (API key), and return size (~2KB). This covers key behavioral aspects beyond the schema, though it could mention whether data is real-time or historical.

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 with headers (function, scenario, keywords, parameters, authentication, risk, return size, related tools), front-loading the purpose. Every section adds value without redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter, the description covers input, usage, safety, and relationships. It lacks return format details, but the return size hint partially compensates. Overall, it is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema.

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 already describes the 'days' parameter with constraints and a short description. The description adds context that the default is 7 days and that it applies to realized PnL, enhancing understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 generates a PnL report including current floating PnL and realized PnL for a configurable number of days (default 7). The resource and verb are explicit, and it is distinct from sibling tools like agent_risk_overview which addresses broader risk.

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 concrete scenarios (e.g., answering 'how much I earned today', daily reporting) and a workflow linking related tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct alternatives, though the workflow implies complementary usage.

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