data_get_strategy_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably: it declares read-only status, 'no side effects', and states the precondition that a strategy must be running with the panel populated. It doesn't say what happens when the panel is empty (error vs empty result), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three tight, labeled sentences (purpose, WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS/LIMITATIONS) with zero filler. The most decision-relevant information, what it extracts, is front-loaded.

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 no-arg read-only extraction tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned metrics, which is exactly the return-value information an agent would otherwise lack. Prerequisites and safety posture are both covered.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. No parameter meaning needs to be added, and the description correctly does not invent any.

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?

States a specific verb (Extract) and resource (TradingView Strategy Tester panel performance metrics), and enumerates the exact metrics returned. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling readers like data_get_trades, data_get_equity, and data_get_indicator.

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 WHEN TO USE clause gives explicit timing ('after compiling a Pine Script strategy to evaluate quantitative backtest results') plus a prerequisite in LIMITATIONS. It does not name alternative tools for related backtest data (e.g. data_get_trades/data_get_equity), so it falls just short of a 5.

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