chainvectorStrategyCascadeFade

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core rules of the strategy—buying flushed long side or selling flushed short side, waiting for burst < rate, and avoiding accelerating cascades. However, it does not indicate whether the tool is a pure signal generator or has side effects, nor describe its output format.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the key concept, no fluff. The jargon is dense but purposeful.

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 explains the strategy logic but omits any indication of the return value or output structure, which is significant since there is no output schema. It does mention heatmap clusters as a target, but not how the tool is invoked or consumed.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: fading an exhausting liquidation cascade. It uses a specific verb ('fade') and names the resource ('liquidation cascade'), and the distinction from sibling momentum/revert/squeeze strategies is evident.

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 gives explicit usage conditions: only fade an exhausting cascade when forced closing cools off (burst < rate), and never when the cascade is still accelerating. It does not name alternative tools but the conditions clearly differentiate when this strategy is appropriate.

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