Trader Performance

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

Annotations already cover safety traits (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations by specifying the exact comparison dimensions and the trend-direction output, which helps the agent understand what the tool computes and returns.

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?

Two dense sentences, no filler. The core function is front-loaded, the returned metrics are listed compactly, and the intended use case is stated at the end. 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?

For a read-only single-address analytics tool, the description covers the main output fields and the practical use case. No output schema exists, so the enumerated metrics help fill that gap. It could be slightly richer about how trend direction is derived, but nothing essential is missing for invoking the 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 100%: both address and useToonFormat have descriptive schema entries. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond naming the trader, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters fully.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get performance comparison for a trader') and enumerates concrete metrics: 30-day vs all-time PnL, trade count, win rate, and trend direction. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling trader tools by focusing on performance comparison and hot/cooling evaluation.

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 decision context: 'Use this to evaluate if a trader is currently hot or cooling off.' It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended use case is clear enough for an agent to select it over similar trader-focused siblings.

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