chainvectorStrategyMomentum

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It thoroughly explains the trigger logic (score threshold, breadth, dispersion, order book lean, liquidation cascade) and the return format (triggered true/false plus blockers). It does not mention side effects or permissions, but as a strategy evaluation tool, this level of detail is substantial.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose and then list trigger conditions. It is dense but not overly verbose; every clause provides meaningful condition detail without 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?

Given the tool has 3 simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate context by summarizing the decision logic and return type. It could be more complete by detailing the structure of 'blockers', but for a strategy template with this parameter complexity, the information is reasonably sufficient.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (symbol, min_score, min_breadth), including defaults and ranges. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, mostly referencing min_score and breadth conditionally, but no new syntax or format details are introduced.

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 as a 'Momentum-continuation template' with a specific trigger condition list, and explicitly states the return value (triggered true/false plus blockers). This distinguishes it from sibling strategy tools like chainvectorStrategyMeanRevert or chainvectorStrategySqueeze.

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 usage for momentum-continuation setups by describing the conditions that trigger it, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use versus alternatives, nor does it state exclusions or mention other strategy templates by name. The differentiation is only implicit via the 'momentum' label.

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