scan_strategy_signals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does excellently. It discloses internal mechanics (loads strategy.py and config.json from storage/artifacts/{job_id}/), data fetching behavior, the warmup-based window, email side effects when notify is true, and detailed error/return behavior for missing files or invalid config.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, followed by an overview paragraph and organized Args/Returns sections. It is longer than strictly necessary but every section adds valuable context. It earns a 4, not a 5, because the level of detail (especially the full return shape) could be slightly trimmed without losing core meaning.

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 is complete for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It covers the purpose, all parameters, the exact return shape under success and failure, side effects (notification), and even references the config spec. There are no significant gaps that would leave an agent uncertain about invocation or interpretation of results.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter in the Args section: job_id, warmup_days_override, notify, and notify_to. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults, including the purpose of each argument and how overrides work.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Scan the latest bar for live strategy signals from a saved backtest job.' This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_backtest_result or run_backtest_dynamic, which focus on historical results or running backtests, not live signal scanning.

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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool (for live signals derived from a saved backtest) and explains the process (loads artifacts, fetches OHLCV, optional notify). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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