analyze_trader_strategy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the methodology (trade history and LLM classification) and the return fields, which adds transparency. However, it does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., data freshness, latency, reliance on profile existence) or safety characteristics beyond the fact that it is an analysis function.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately specifies what the tool returns. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant phrasing.

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's low complexity (one parameter) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context by listing the return categories (strategy type, risk level, success score, bot detection). It does not detail output structures or error scenarios, but for a simple analyzer this is reasonably complete.

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 a thorough description of the single parameter (profile_id) including format and examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('a trader's strategy'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on individual trader analysis rather than discovery (find_top_traders) or batch reporting (generate_batch_report). It also enumerates the key outputs, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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 use when a specific trader's strategy needs evaluation, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools, so the guidance is only implicit.

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