get_latest_signal

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that no P&L or stats are computed, and returns only signal, conditions, and timestamp. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, the context implies it is a query without side effects. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then list return values. Every sentence is necessary and efficient.

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?

Despite good purpose and usage guidance, the description lacks parameter explanations and does not leverage the output schema (which exists) to detail return format. Given the complexity of four object parameters, this gap reduces completeness.

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?

Input schema has 4 parameters (2 required), all objects with additionalProperties: true, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any of these parameters (e.g., what 'strategy', 'execution', 'data_inputs', 'data_source' contain or how to use them). It fails to add meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool evaluates strategy on the most recent bar only, returning a signal (-1/0/1), condition slots, and timestamp. Distinguishes itself from run_backtest, which is for performance analysis, thus specifying the resource and action effectively.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (for 'what would this strategy do right now' questions) and when to use an alternative (use run_backtest for performance). This provides clear context and exclusions.

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