Get a detailed report card for a strategy.
Includes validation run results for all 7 stages, performance metrics,
and the integrity block (code hash, AST hash, parameter fingerprint).
Args:
strategy_id: The strategy's database ID.
Returns JSON with: strategy details, latest validation runs, metrics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| strategy_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral details: the report includes validation runs for all 7 stages, performance metrics, and the integrity block (code hash, AST hash, parameter fingerprint), and notes that it returns the latest validation runs. This goes beyond the tool name and schema, though it does not explicitly mention side effects or failure modes.
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 compact and well-structured: opening purpose statement, content details, explicit Args line, and Returns line. Each sentence adds distinct information with no fluff or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 tool has one required parameter, an output schema that can describe return values, and no nested objects. The description covers purpose, content, and parameter semantics completely enough for correct invocation. Any missing usage guidance is captured in the usage dimension, not a completeness gap here.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explains the sole parameter, strategy_id, as 'The strategy's database ID.' This adds semantic meaning beyond the raw integer type in the schema. It lacks extra guidance on where to find the ID, but for a single simple parameter it provides adequate meaning.
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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed report card for a strategy'), and elaborates with concrete contents: validation run results for all 7 stages, performance metrics, and an integrity block. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delist_strategy or sandbox_backtest, as it is specifically a reporting/read tool for strategy status and health.
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: whenever an agent needs a detailed report card for a strategy, including validation and metrics. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives from the sibling list, leaving selection conditions to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.