stats_probabilistic-sharpe

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds that the tool calculates probability, p-value, and required track record length, providing transparency on output without contradicting 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?

The description is very concise: two sentences plus a brief note on returns. Front-loaded with the core purpose and academic reference, no wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explicitly states the return values: probabilistic Sharpe ratio, p-value, and required track record length. Combined with the purpose and parameter guidance, the description is complete for a statistical test 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'returns and a benchmark Sharpe,' which adds context but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 computes the Probabilistic Sharpe Ratio to test statistical significance of an observed Sharpe ratio against a benchmark. It distinguishes itself from simpler Sharpe ratio tools by emphasizing statistical testing, and references the underlying academic work.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when testing whether a Sharpe ratio is statistically significant.' It also directs the user to provide returns and a benchmark Sharpe. However, it does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives like stats_sharpe-ratio for simple calculation.

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