run_backtest

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not clarify what the tool actually does beyond 'run backtest'. It omits behavioral details such as whether it consumes credits, returns a backtest ID, or how long async requests take. The description adds minimal value beyond the annotations and schema.

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 that cover the tool's purpose and main modes without extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the action (run) and key distinction (four modes), making it easy to parse.

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 complexity (nested objects, enums, multiple modes), the description is too brief. It does not explain what the tool returns (no output schema), how to interpret results, or prerequisites like credit balance. However, it covers the basic operation flow. A more complete description would add outcome details.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a brief summary of required payload fields, but this largely repeats the schema. It does not provide additional context or constraints beyond what the schema already offers. A higher score would require unique semantic insights, which are absent.

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 runs backtest operations, lists four distinct modes (validate, estimate, request, requestSync), and specifies the required payload elements (exchange, exchangeUUID, bot settings). It distinguishes from siblings like backtest_info, which handles results, and other bot management tools.

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 clear context for when to use each mode (validate, estimate, request, requestSync), but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or offer direct comparisons with alternatives like backtest_info for retrieving results. The guidance is adequate for an agent to choose the correct mode.

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