Analyze closed round trips over an optional date range to compute net P&L, win rate, profit factor, expectancy, drawdown, losing streaks, hold time, and PDT day-trade count.
Stats for closed round trips (optionally between start/end YYYY-MM-DD): net P&L, win rate, profit factor, expectancy, average win/loss, max drawdown, losing streak, hold time, and PDT day-trade count.
| 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 provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the computed return values (useful given no output schema) and implies a read-only aggregation, but says nothing about data scope (which account), preconditions such as needing imported fills first, or cost/latency.
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 front-loaded sentence; the metric list is long but earns its place since there is no output schema to document the return shape. Slightly dense, but no filler.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented 2-param schema, the description covers the return metrics well but leaves data-source scope (all trades vs a filtered set) and prerequisites unstated. Adequate but with clear gaps for a stats tool.
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%: start/end have no descriptions and empty-string defaults. The description partially compensates by stating the format (YYYY-MM-DD) and that both are optional, but omits range inclusivity (inclusive/exclusive) and what an empty value means (all time).
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?
Names a specific verb+resource ('Stats for closed round trips') and enumerates the exact metrics computed (net P&L, win rate, profit factor, max drawdown, etc.), so an agent knows precisely what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like compare_periods or find_leaks.
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 parenthetical 'optionally between start/end YYYY-MM-DD' implies the date-range use case, so usage is inferable. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over compare_periods or what happens if the range is omitted, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.