get_pnl_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool computes a summary but does not clarify whether it performs a live calculation, has rate limits, or requires any permissions. The read-only, non-destructive nature is implied but not explicit.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and key output fields. It is relatively concise but could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from expected outputs. No unnecessary words.

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?

Without an output schema, the description helpfully enumerates output fields (total PnL, win rate, etc.). However, it lacks context on data freshness, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., wallet must have trading history). Adequate for a simple aggregation tool but not fully comprehensive.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (address and window). The tool description adds no further parameter meaning beyond listing outputs, which is acceptable. Baseline score 3 as schema already defines parameters adequately.

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 uses specific verb 'Compute' and resource 'realized PnL summary', listing key outputs (total PnL, win rate, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_fills or get_positions by focusing on PnL summary aggregation.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or when alternatives are better. While the name and context imply it's for PnL analysis, no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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