chainvectorStrategySqueeze

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It explains the strategy rationale but fails to state what the tool actually returns (e.g., a direction signal, a score), how it handles cases where the minimum score isn't met, or whether it places trades. The imperative 'trade in the direction' is ambiguous about the tool's output or side effects.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the template name, and contains no filler. Every clause adds context about the strategy's logic and confirmation signal, making it appropriately sized.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description leaves a critical gap: it never explains what the tool returns or how the output should be interpreted (e.g., 'long'/'short'/'neutral'). This is essential for using the strategy tool correctly, and the description's focus on strategy logic doesn't compensate for the missing operational detail.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters, and the description adds minimal context by tying min_score to the 'aggregate squeeze score' and mentioning squeeze_direction as an output. It doesn't deepen understanding of parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline 3.

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 identifies this as a funding-squeeze strategy template and explains the trade direction logic, distinguishing it from raw funding/squeeze signal tools like chainvectorFundingSqueeze. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool returns a strategy signal or advice, instead describing the strategy logic in a directive manner.

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 when a crowded side pays extreme funding and cascade risk confirms the unwind, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over other strategy templates (e.g., chainvectorStrategyMomentum) or when not to use it. No alternatives are named, leaving selection guidance implicit.

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