chainvectorStrategyMeanRevert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the strategy logic and the long/short direction, but does not disclose potential risks, whether positions are actually opened, or any other side effects. For a strategy template tool, the core behavior (generating signals based on conditions) is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 long and packed with information: the regime requirement, the extreme condition, the trade direction, and the mean-reversion target. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 covers the strategy logic and the key conditions, and the schema provides 100% parameter coverage. No output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It could benefit from stating what the tool returns (e.g., signals), but for a 'template' tool, the description is sufficiently complete given the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining how the RSI thresholds relate to the strategy (RSI oversold/overbought and long/short sides), and the context of 'interval' as 'indicator bar interval' is reinforced. The description does not fully elaborate on how the parameters interact, but given full schema coverage, this is adequate.

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 states this is a mean-reversion template with specific conditions (choppy/quiet regime, RSI or Bollinger extreme) and the action (long oversold, short overbought, back to mean). It distinguishes from siblings like chainvectorStrategyMomentum and chainvectorStrategySqueeze by naming the template type and the conditions.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'requires a choppy or quiet regime' and warns 'never fade a trend'. It also specifies the indicator extremes (RSI oversold/overbought or close outside Bollinger bands) as triggers, giving clear context for when this strategy is appropriate versus alternatives.

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