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

Even with annotations marking this as non-read-only and destructive, the description adds substantial behavioral context: risk overrides and how <=0 disables guards, direction_mode's default regime-following behavior, allow_short and regime_override semantics, and the paper-trade behavior for unsigned wallets. This goes well beyond the annotation hints and gives the agent a genuinely safer mental model of the tool's effects.

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 information-dense with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, uses backticked parameter names and clear blocks for risk, direction, and workflow, and every sentence adds useful guidance. It is long enough for the tool's complexity but still well-organized.

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 covers the core workflow, prerequisites, risk behavior, direction options, and paper-trading caveat. The output schema exists, so return-value description is not required. Still, the complete omission of what 'smart' does and the lack of detail on slippage_bps and interval_seconds leave a small but real gap for an agent deciding how to call this 11-parameter 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries a heavy burden and compensates well: it explains usd_per_buy, risk guard fields, direction_mode values and default, allow_short, and regime_override. However, it leaves some parameters implicit or unexplained, most notably smart, slippage_bps, source_token (beyond the default), interval_seconds, and wallet_address semantics.

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: "Create a dollar-cost-average strategy buying usd_per_buy of target each interval." This clearly defines the tool's function and distinguishes it from the many other strategy_*_create siblings, especially strategy_equity_dca_create and strategy_momentum_create.

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 workflow guidance: use it as the EXECUTE step after backtest_strategy validates and get_risk_assessment sets guards, and track via strategy_status. It also mentions the paper-trading fallback for wallets without a Turnkey signer. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools for other strategy types.

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