Analyze past trade results to reveal weak times, days, symbols, hold times, direction, and post-loss sizing patterns. Descriptive findings only, not trade advice.
Describe where the user's own past results were weakest: time of day, day of week, hold time, symbol, direction, sizing after a loss, and winners vs losers hold time. Descriptive findings only, never trade advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| start | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey that this is a purely descriptive analysis rather than an advisory or mutating operation, but it omits read-only confirmation, prerequisites (imported trade data), and error/empty-data behavior. Partial disclosure against a zero-annotation baseline.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb and scope, followed by the analytical dimensions and the constraint. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the time-range parameters and the data prerequisite. The analytical coverage is well specified, but what the tool returns and how the start/end window governs the analysis are left unstated.
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 0% and neither 'start' nor 'end' has a title description, leaving both parameters semantically dark. The description never mentions a date range at all, so it does not compensate for the schema gap — the agent must guess what the two string params mean and whether empty defaults mean 'all data'.
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?
States a specific verb ('Describe') and a precisely scoped resource ('where the user's own past results were weakest'), then enumerates the exact dimensions analyzed (time of day, hold time, sizing after a loss). This is far more specific than siblings like get_stats, although no sibling is named explicitly to force the routing choice.
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?
'Descriptive findings only, never trade advice' sets a clear behavioral boundary on how results may be used, but the description never says when to pick this over get_stats or compare_periods, nor what data/period is required first. Usage is implied by the enumerated leak categories rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.