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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it explains the 180-day regime read, the completed-run search with specific floors, random selection, saving from the run, and backtesting on fixed 90-day or 30-day windows. It also discloses that nothing is saved or spent when no run fits and describes payment/authentication access.

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 use-first directive is front-loaded and most details earn their place by clarifying a complex operation. However, the long algorithm sentence and dense payment bracket make it less crisp than ideal.

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 complex multi-step tool with no output schema, the description covers selection logic, fixed inputs, failure behavior, cost implications, access, and marketplace exclusion. It does not explicitly describe the successful return value or result shape, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful conditional meaning: provide the asset, provide candle_size only when the user named one, and do not pass other filters, a regime, or dates.

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: running the Strategy Engine route to build a strategy in one call. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying that it is used first when building a strategy with no named signals and that it does not search the marketplace.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance with examples: whenever someone asks to build or make a strategy and names no signals. It also states what to pass (asset, optional candle_size), what not to pass (filters, regime, dates), and what to do when nothing fits.

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