Get strategy capability catalog

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 silent failure modes, specific indicator ranges (RSI 0-100, WILLR -100 to 0), the literal node-graph interpretation, fallback to a bundled copy, and session caching—far beyond what annotations would typically convey.

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 long (~200 words) but dense with essential operational details and organized purpose-first. The parameter listing is slightly redundant with the schema, but every sentence provides critical guidance, so the length is justified.

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 one-parameter catalog tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers return contents, error prone scenarios, parameter semantics, source fallback, caching, and fixed timeframes, leaving little ambiguity about tool behavior.

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 schema already documents the single `section` parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra context by explaining what each section contains and clarifying that timeframes are always 1m/5m/15m/1h/1d, going slightly beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Return the catalog of everything Pyon's strategy engine understands' and enumerates all catalog sections (indicators, operators, triggers, actions, timeframes, tickers, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_strategy or search_symbols.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'CALL THIS BEFORE writing a create_strategy description, an edit_strategy instruction, or choosing optimize_strategy sweep bounds.' It also explains the consequence of not doing so (silently producing a broken strategy), which is actionable and clear.

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