get_backtest_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves results but does not describe key behaviors: whether it returns only the most recent backtest, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or error conditions. The description is too minimal to inform safe and effective use.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be more structured by including key usage details. The brevity is appropriate but borders on under-specification.

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 complexity of backtesting tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'results' include (e.g., summary statistics, charts), how it relates to sibling tools, or behavioral aspects like idempotency. For a tool that likely returns critical financial data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 100% description coverage, with one parameter ('detailed') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not clarify what 'last backtest' means in relation to the parameter). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose ('Get results from the last backtest'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('results from the last backtest'), but does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_backtest_status' or explain what constitutes 'results' (e.g., performance metrics, trade logs). This leaves ambiguity about the exact output.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that a backtest must have been run first), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_backtest_status' or 'run_backtest'. This lack of context makes it unclear when this tool is appropriate.

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