List the strategy templates available for backtesting and comparison (name, title, one-line description). Use the returned name value as the strategy identifier in other tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of listing is consistent but adds minimal new behavioral insight beyond the return fields.
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 sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a usage hint. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 key information: what the tool does and what it returns. For a simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, this is nearly complete. Could mention ordering or rate limits, but not essential.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter info, but the baseline for zero parameters is 4, which is appropriate here.
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 clearly states it lists strategy templates available for backtesting and comparison, specifying what fields are returned (name, title, one-line description). This differentiates it from sibling tools like run_backtest and compare_strategies.
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 explicitly instructs to use the returned 'name' value as the strategy identifier in other tools, providing clear context for usage. No exclusions are given, but the tool's purpose is straightforward.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: statistical checks, strategy comparison, historical returns, live signals, DCA, overfitting index, strategy listing, dataset query, backtesting, Q&A search, and glossary. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_overfitting, run_backtest, search_glossary). No mixing of conventions.
11 tools is well-scoped for a crypto backtesting server, covering the full workflow from strategy selection, backtesting, overfitting analysis, to educational queries without excess or deficiency.
The tool set covers core backtesting, overfitting diagnostics, data retrieval, and knowledge base searches. Minor gaps like strategy modification or saving results are present, but the main lifecycle is complete.
