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

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond annotations: it states that performance_summary is a 'factual metrics blob -- no return promises are stored or surfaced (hard rule 8)', and that backtest_run_id attaches a 'verified backtest' with on-chain attestation. It also notes that publishing is not read-only (matching readOnlyHint:false), but does not fully describe all side effects or error conditions.

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 moderately lengthy but packs multiple relevant details into a few sentences. It is well-structured, with each sentence addressing a distinct aspect (purpose, parameters, exclusions, cost). It avoids verbosity, though some phrases (e.g., 'the flywheel') could be considered slightly redundant.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description is only partially complete. It covers key behavioral aspects and some parameter semantics, but does not address the output schema or provide a full picture of the request/response flow. It also omits explicit guidance on authentication or failure modes.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains some parameters (config_template, anonymous, performance_summary, backtest_run_id) but leaves others like name, description, strategy_type, caller_id, and author_wallet_address unexplained. With 9 parameters and only partial explanation, the semantics are insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Publish a cloneable strategy config to the marketplace.' It specifies the action (publish) and the resource (strategy config), and mentions the 'flywheel' context. This distinguishes it from related tools like clone_strategy or compose_strategy.

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 provides some usage constraints, such as 'Equity (tokenized-security) strategies are excluded' and mentions 'Read/control-plane, free' which hints at operational costs and classification. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like create_strategy or propose_template_update, so the 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance is only partially covered.

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