strategy_sweep

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'iterate'. It reveals nothing about side effects (e.g., chart modifications, caching, parallelism, restore behavior) or operational characteristics (e.g., long-running, error handling, resource usage). This is a significant transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the core function without filler. It is appropriately concise, though for a tool with 14 parameters it could arguably carry more contextual weight without becoming verbose.

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?

This is a complex sweep tool with 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description only names the dimensions being swept, omitting crucial context about execution, side effects, caching behavior, error handling, result delivery, or how it integrates with the other chart/strategy tools. It is far from complete for a tool of this 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter semantics; it relies entirely on the detailed per-parameter descriptions in the input schema. No extra meaning is conveyed beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Iterate a strategy across symbols × timeframes × indicator input combinations' uses a specific verb (iterate) and identifies the exact resource (strategy) and the three sweep dimensions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like data_get_strategy_results (which retrieves results) and batch_run (generic execution).

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 its usage for sweeping multiple parameter combinations but never explicitly states when to choose it over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or complementary tools. It offers only a terse purpose without contextual guidance on when to invoke it.

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