get_box_pnl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully defines the PnL formula, but it does not disclose how results are aggregated or ordered, what the default behavior is when box_id is omitted, or what the return structure looks like.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by concrete example questions that help an agent select the tool quickly.

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?

The description is adequate for tool selection but not fully sufficient for invocation: there is no output schema, no annotations, limit semantics are unexplained, and the relationship to the similar sibling get_global_pnl is not addressed.

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 covers box_id with a description, but limit has no schema description. The tool description adds 'per box' context and implies optional filtering, but it never explains the limit parameter's meaning, default, or effect, leaving one of two parameters effectively undocumented.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get profit & loss per box' and explains the calculation basis ('purchase price vs. realized/unrealized value of pulled cards'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_global_pnl, which would address portfolio-level P&L.

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 explicit use cases: 'was Box X worth it' or 'how is Gothic performing overall' questions. It gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like get_global_pnl or state when not to use it.

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