Trader Daily Stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the output includes daily PnL, trade count, win rate, and volume, and notes the breakdown covers only days the trader was active. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the operation, the second specifies the returned data, and the third gives the use case. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant restatements.

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 read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it identifies the input type (trader), the output fields, and the intended analytical use. It does not explain toon format details, but those are covered in the input schema.

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 the baseline is 3: the schema already documents the address and useToonFormat parameters. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to because the schema carries full weight.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('day-by-day performance breakdown for any trader'), and enumerates the exact metrics returned: daily PnL, trade count, win rate, and volume. This clearly differentiates it from cohort-level, market-level, and other trader-specific tools in the sibling list.

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 description gives explicit use cases: 'deep due diligence and identifying consistency patterns.' It also clarifies scope with 'for any trader,' distinguishing it from cohort tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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