bracket_backtest

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

Describes simulation details beyond annotations: ATR-bracket exits, intra-bar high/low checks, conservative stop-first fills, per-side fee+slippage. Annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) are consistent; no contradiction.

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?

Well-structured: one-line summary, comparison, execution detail, then detailed Args. Slightly verbose but appropriate given complexity. Every sentence 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?

Covers all parameters and behavioral details. Explains regime filtering, trade log, and execution model. No output schema but description sufficiently informs about return. Complete for a complex backtesting tool.

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 has 0% description coverage; the description fully documents all 15 parameters with explanations, defaults, and usage suggestions (e.g., days window tips). Adds critical meaning beyond what schema 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?

Description clearly states it backtests scalp/day/swing strategies on Binance 1m-1d klines (long and short). Explicitly distinguishes from sibling backtest_strategy (Yahoo, 1h/1d, long-only).

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 alternative (backtest_strategy) for different use cases. Gives parameter suggestions (e.g., interval-day combos). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but offers sufficient context for decision.

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