get_strategy_state

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

Declares the tool as read-only, which is key behavioral information. With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and largely succeeds. Could be improved by mentioning error conditions or required permissions, but the read-only nature and return type are adequately communicated.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the verb, resource, and output format. Every word adds value.

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 covers the core functionality, usage, and safety. It could optionally detail the return structure more, but the overall clarity compensates. Well-suited for the tool's complexity.

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%, meaning the 'name' parameter has no schema description. The tool description does not explicitly explain the parameter semantics, leaving the agent to infer from usage examples. Compensation is minimal, as a direct description of the parameter is missing.

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?

Clearly states it returns one strategy's current state as a JSON dict with specific content (params, position view, last decisions). Distinguishes from sibling retrieval tools like get_positions, get_open_orders by focusing on strategy state. Usage examples reinforce purpose.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete user queries ('what does strategy X think right now'). Does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the examples are sufficiently clear for an AI agent to select this tool appropriately.

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