chainvectorStrategyProbabilityTarget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the tool's behavior: it computes and returns probabilistic metrics (P(TP), P(stop), terminal probability, expected move). It also explains the decision criterion (positive expectancy). While it does not explicitly state 'no side effects' or detail underlying model assumptions, the nature of a probability calculation is inherently non-destructive, and the description is transparent about outputs.

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 core purpose, and each clause adds value. The expectancy formula is a compact but powerful addition. 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 provides a complete picture of what the tool outputs and when to use it. Given there is no output schema, it lists the four return components and the go/no-go logic. It could mention more about data dependencies or model assumptions, but for invocation selection it is sufficiently complete. It also implicitly differentiates from sibling chainvectorProbability tools by focusing on TP/SL placement.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context by linking 'take-profit and stop price' to the relevant parameters and 'horizon end' to the horizon parameter, but it does not go beyond what the schema already describes. It reinforces the meaning without adding new semantic detail.

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 a specific verb ('returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('Probability-engine trade plan for an already-chosen direction'). It lists exact outputs (P(TP), P(stop), terminal probability, expected move) and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'already-chosen direction' and 'go/no-go' for TP/SL placement.

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 states when to use it: 'for an already-chosen direction' and 'a quantified go/no-go for exact TP/SL placement.' It implies the tool is for planning entries/exits after direction is set, which is clear contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, so not a 5.

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