Recent Closed Lifecycles

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: the source table, inclusion of MAE/MFE only when backfilled, liquidation flag, optional spot, and the critical caveat that the freshest closes may show null MAE/MFE due to risk backfill lag. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: core use case, source and included fields, successor relationship, and an important data-quality caveat. The most essential information is front-loaded, with no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 feed tool with no output schema, the description conveys the source table, key returned fields, filters, and a meaningful lag caveat. It does not describe the full response envelope or the practical effect of useToonFormat beyond the schema, but an agent has enough context to invoke the tool 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 100%, with every parameter including defaults, patterns, and examples. The description restates filter categories like coin, minNotional, hold-duration, and time window, but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Global feed of the most recently CLOSED position lifecycles across ALL wallets.' It also positions itself as the 'Cross-wallet successor to pulse_recent_closed_positions', making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like pulse_trader_lifecycles or pulse_lifecycle.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: for exchange-wide, real-time closed lifecycle activity — 'what just closed exchange-wide right now'. It explicitly identifies the predecessor/sibling pulse_recent_closed_positions, but it does not enumerate exclusions or contrast with other lifecycle/trader-specific alternatives, so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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