analyze_trades

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Paid Fintools MCP required', which is a behavioral prerequisite, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication beyond the paid plan, or has rate limits. For a calculation tool, a readOnly hint would be valuable but is absent.

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 short sentence, which is concise. However, it sacrifices completeness and clarity. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information; instead, it leads with the paid requirement, which may not be the primary purpose.

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 two parameters (one required), a known output schema (though not detailed here), and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose adequately, parameter meanings, return values, or how it fits with sibling tools. The agent lacks sufficient information to use it correctly.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for the two parameters. The description does not mention any parameters, leaving the agent without any explanation of 'pnls' (array of numbers) or 'starting_equity' (number with default). The agent cannot infer their meaning or constraints.

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 states 'trade-stat calculations and review context', which gives a general sense of the tool's function but lacks specificity. The verb 'analyze' is implied from the name, but the description does not explicitly define the verb or resource, making it somewhat vague. It fails to differentiate from siblings like 'analyze_options_chain' or 'get_market_snapshot'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention contexts, prerequisites beyond the paid requirement, or exclusions. The agent is left to guess the appropriate use case.

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