backtest_strategy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Deterministic' (consistent with idempotency) and enumerates return fields (total return, Sharpe, etc.). Also mentions 'PAID ONLY' as a behavioral constraint. No contradictions; adds useful context.

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 concise at 4 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then strategies, usage, and returns. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It efficiently packs all essential information.

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 complexity (6 params, 1 nested, no output schema), the description fully covers the tool: explains strategies, parameter shapes, and return fields including equity curve and vs buy-and-hold. Also notes it's paid. No gaps for agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% (all 6 parameters described). The description reinforces the params object structure per strategy, but the schema already includes example structures. Since schema covers the parameter meanings, the description adds minimal new semantics beyond usage context.

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 performs deterministic backtests of four specific strategies (SMA crossover, RSI mean reversion, momentum, Bollinger breakout). It distinguishes itself by noting it replaces 10+ individual calls, making the purpose precise even among many financial siblings.

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 says 'Use when backtesting a trading strategy on price history' and lists the supported strategies, providing clear context. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the paid restriction is noted. Given rich sibling list, some guidance on when not to use would improve, but it's still clear.

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