Trader Closed Position Stats

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context on top of that. It adds useful semantic constraints ('not by fill') but does not disclose caveats such as time range, empty-result behavior, or how toon vs standard formatting affects the response.

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?

Three sentences with the core purpose and metrics front-loaded, and the example questions make it actionable. Slight redundancy exists because the examples restate metrics already listed in the first sentence.

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 simple 2-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations and full schema parameter coverage, the description covers what statistics are returned and why an agent would call it. It does not specify the exact output shape or the time window of closed positions, but the metric list and use cases are sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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%, so address and useToonFormat are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond that schema baseline.

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?

Specific verb ('Get aggregate statistics') plus a clearly bounded resource ('a trader's closed positions'), and it enumerates the exact metrics returned. It also distinguishes itself from fill-level trade metrics via 'win rate by position (not by fill)' and from raw closed-position siblings by its aggregate focus.

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?

Provides clear use context: understanding how long a trader holds positions and whether they are a scalper or swing trader, with concrete example questions. It stops short of saying when not to use this tool or naming sibling tools like pulse_trader_closed_positions for raw position lists.

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