get_strategy_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read-only' (implying no side effects) and describes the output format. This is adequate transparency for a simple state retrieval tool. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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 sentences, front-loading the action and output. Every part adds value: the verb, the output type, contents, read-only nature, and example prompts. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, parameter (via example), and return structure (JSON dict with listed fields). No further context is needed given the simplicity and sibling tool landscape.

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 has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions in schema), so the description must compensate. It implies the single 'name' parameter is the strategy identifier via the example 'ema-trend'. While not explicitly stating the parameter's meaning, the example and context make it sufficiently clear. Baseline for zero-param schema coverage is 4, and this meets that.

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 returns a strategy's current state as a JSON dict, specifying included fields (params, position view, last decisions). It also provides concrete usage examples ('what does strategy X think right now'), which distinguish it from sibling tools that handle orders, indicators, etc.

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 indicates read-only usage and provides user query examples, implying when to call the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases where other tools (e.g., get_positions) might be preferred, nor does it mention prerequisites like the strategy must exist. The guidance is good but lacks explicit boundaries.

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