chainvectorStrategyAdvise

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the critical behavior 'Treat action='flat' or any veto as a hard no-trade' and details the decision structure fields. It does not cover error handling or data source specifics, but the core advisory behavior is well communicated.

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: the first packs essential functionality and output fields, the second provides a critical usage rule. No redundancy or filler; every phrase earns its place.

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 tool's complexity and lack of an output schema, the description adequately lists the decision output components and the veto rule. It does not explain interpretation or ranges of scores, but it offers enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns and how to act on it.

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 reinforces parameter roles (horizon for stop/target sizing, risk index for veto) but does not add substantive new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. It references 'requested horizon' and 'risk index' without further elaboration.

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 starts with 'Full ChainVector ensemble advisor for a Binance symbol', clearly stating the tool's purpose as a comprehensive decision-maker. It enumerates precise outputs (action, EV score, confidence, veto list, size multiplier, stops/targets) and distinguishes itself from sibling strategy tools by being the 'full ensemble' version.

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 implies this is the go-to tool for a fused, holistic trade decision, contrasting with the more specialized sibling tools like chainvectorStrategyMomentum or chainvectorSignalsSnapshot. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for tool selection.

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