chainvectorStrategyList

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys a read-only listing operation via the verb 'List', and it outlines the content of the response (setup, regime, signals). While it doesn't explicitly state that it makes no modifications, the listing nature is self-evident. It also adds useful context by indicating this should be the first call for strategy inquiries.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose. The first sentence front-loads the action and the exact output, while the second provides direct usage instructions. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a no-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It explicitly names the strategies and the fields returned, giving the agent a clear expectation. It could optionally mention the return format or any potential empty states, but that is not critical for such a simple read-only operation.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The empty input schema needs no further explanation, and the description correctly omits any parameter details since there are none. The description adds no parameter semantics because none are required to invoke the tool.

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 uses the verb 'List' and unambiguously identifies the resource as 'ChainVector strategy templates', enumerating them by name. It also specifies the returned information (setup, regime, signals), making the purpose crystal clear and differentiating it from the individual strategy sibling tools like chainvectorStrategyAdvise, which focus on a single strategy.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call this first when the user asks what strategies can I run?'. This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or scenarios where this tool should not be used, such as when the user asks for a specific strategy's details, which are likely covered by sibling tools.

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