Trader Lifecycle Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is an aggregate 'one call' summary, uses a '90-day rolling window,' and aligns with pulse_trader_lifecycles semantics. This is meaningful but not exhaustive; no contradictions with annotations exist.

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?

The description is three sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's core purpose and output, the second adds temporal scope, and the third gives the practical use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is complete for this tool's complexity. It explains what the aggregate summary includes, the 90-day window, and the intended usage. The input schema fully documents all five parameters, and since there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the key returned metrics.

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%, and every parameter already has a clear description in the schema (address pattern, coin filter, includeSpot, useToonFormat, includeCensored). The tool description does not add new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Get a wallet's aggregate position-lifecycle stats,' and enumerates the exact metrics returned (wins, losses, liquidations, win rate, PnL, hold durations, fees, unique coins). It also references the sibling pulse_trader_lifecycles to anchor scope, making the tool's identity clear against dozens of related tools.

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 final sentence gives an explicit use case: 'Use to size up a trader's position-level performance in one call.' It also notes the same 90-day rolling window as pulse_trader_lifecycles, which helps an agent understand the temporal scope. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for more granular lifecycle detail, so it stops 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.