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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully states that the tool is read-only and discloses access restrictions such as high-risk leverage being available to the owner passkey only, though it does not discuss pagination or response structure beyond listing the backtest fields.

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 a single dense sentence with a front-loaded purpose and no obvious filler. It is efficient, though the long semicolon-separated list makes it slightly harder to scan than a more structured presentation would be.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is highly complete. It enumerates the key backtest metrics, leverage scenarios, and account-size information an agent can expect, and it states the safety profile despite the absence of annotations.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it appropriately focuses on the returned content instead.

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 and resource: list FortFi autonomous Hyperliquid strategy presets, explicitly framed as house presets with published backtest data. It clearly distinguishes these from general strategies by calling them presets, though it does not explicitly name the sibling list_strategies tool as an alternative.

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 implies usage by noting that tested leverage values are accepted by start_strategy, which suggests this tool is used to inspect presets before starting one. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus list_strategies, get_strategy, or other strategy-related siblings.

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