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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the x402/0.001 USDC per-call cost with API-key alternative, and a real data-scope constraint ('names only; the creator's tuning is never exposed'). It does not cover failure behavior when the id is unknown or whether non-marketplace strategies are rejected.

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?

Front-loaded with the payload description and usage instruction, then the access/payment note in its own bracketed paragraph. Every sentence is doing work, though the payment paragraph is proportionally long for a one-parameter lookup.

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 single-param tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and stating the access model. Remaining gaps are edge behavior (not-found, unauthorized, non-listing ids), which keeps it from a 5.

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% with a single required strategy_id already described as 'The strategy's UUID.' The description adds nothing further about the parameter (e.g. must it be a marketplace listing rather than an owned strategy), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: returns one marketplace listing in full and enumerates what comes back (metrics, signal names, backtest summary, in-account flag). The 'marketplace listing' framing implicitly separates it from get_strategy (own strategies) and search_marketplace (discovery), so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

'Use it before describing or offering a specific listing, so what you say is what the marketplace holds' gives an explicit trigger condition tied to a downstream action. It stops short of naming the alternative (e.g. search_marketplace for discovery vs this for detail), so it is clear context without full when-not routing.

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