compare_strategies

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and no destruction. The description adds that it runs all 9 strategies and that some may contribute zero trades if period too short, which is valuable behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is concise, front-loaded with main purpose, then lists parameters in a clean format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Coverage is strong: lists all strategies, documents parameters, and warns about period limitations. Could mention the output format (leaderboard columns) but not critical given tool's clarity.

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?

All 4 parameters are documented with meaning, defaults, and usage notes (e.g., period recommendation). Schema coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates with clear semantics.

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 it runs all 9 listed strategies and returns a ranked leaderboard, which distinguishes it from siblings like backtest_strategy that likely run a single strategy.

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 guidance: recommends period >= '1y' for SMA200 warmup, explains that shorter periods cause zero trades for certain strategies, and gives symbol examples. No explicit when-not to use, but context is clear.

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