data_get_strategy_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effects: 'Auto-opens Strategy Tester and unhides the selected strategy so TradingView computes its report.' This is a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond a simple read. It does not mention return format or potential errors, but the side effect is the most critical behavioral trait.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The first sentence states what the tool does; the second gives a conditional parameter hint and the all-important side effect. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it retrieves, when to pass the parameter, and the side effect of opening the Strategy Tester. It might benefit from hinting at the nature of the returned metrics, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a critical gap.

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 covers the entity_id parameter with a detailed description including where to get it and when it is recommended. The tool description adds the same advice ('Pass entity_id when more than one strategy is loaded') but does not introduce new semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get strategy performance metrics', which clearly states the verb and resource (strategy performance report). It distinguishes from sibling tools like data_get_trades and data_get_equity by focusing on the Strategy Tester report. The context about entity_id and auto-opening the Strategy Tester further clarifies the tool's unique role.

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 provides concrete usage guidance: 'Pass entity_id when more than one strategy is loaded.' It also explains that the tool auto-opens the Strategy Tester and unhides the strategy, which informs the user of prerequisite behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stays at 4.

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