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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: it describes the flat-state logic (buys on dip), the holding-state exits (take profit or stop loss), and the dependency on a rolling price window with a warm-up requirement. This gives meaningful insight into how the strategy executes without contradicting the annotations.

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 two well-structured paragraphs. The first sentence is a high-level summary, followed by concise operational details. Every sentence contributes value, and the reference to another tool avoids redundant documentation.

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 presence of an output schema and the annotations, the description covers the essential logic and constraints (entry conditions, exit conditions, warm-up period). It doesn't discuss prerequisites like wallet funding or error handling, but the output schema and annotations cover return values and safety. The tool is complex, but the description is sufficient for a competent agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Even though the schema has 0% description coverage, the text defines the core parameters: usd_per_buy, entry_dip_pct, lookback, take_profit_pct, stop_loss_pct, and interval_seconds. It also points to strategy_dca_create for risk/direction params. This compensates well for the schema gap, though some parameters like slippage_bps and source_token go unexplained.

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 'Create a snipe/scalping strategy -- dip-buy with a fast take-profit/stop exit,' which clearly identifies the action (create), the resource (strategy), and the specific strategy type (snipe/scalping). It distinguishes itself from sibling strategy creation tools by specifying the dip-buy logic and fast exit approach.

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?

It states the strategy runs on a short interval and requires the per-tick rolling window to accumulate lookback + 1 observations before entering, giving the agent a concrete condition for use. It also references strategy_dca_create for risk/direction params, guiding the agent on related tools, though it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when NOT to use this tool.

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