get_pnl_history

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it explicitly states 'Read-only, not confirm-gated' and that OctoBot's JSON body is returned unchanged. This tells the agent the call is safe, requires no confirmation, and preserves the upstream response.

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 action and then gives endpoint mapping, filter guidance, and behavioral notes. The source-verification and 'NFR-8' details add provenance but are slightly internal/jargon-heavy, preventing a perfect score.

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 read-only filtered endpoint, it covers the endpoint, optional parameters, safety profile, and response handling. It does not describe the JSON body's contents, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, so it is not fully complete.

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, but it only lists the five parameter names and calls them optional filters. It does not define the meaning or accepted format of 'since' or 'scale', nor clarify the values for exchange, symbol, and quote beyond their self-evident names.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch realized PnL history, optionally filtered.' This clearly states what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like get_trades or get_historical_portfolio_value, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It provides clear operational context: all five query parameters are optional filters and users should omit any they don't want to filter by. It does not name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use conditions, so it doesn't reach the top of the scale.

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