get_strategy

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses critical behavioral traits: blocking execution model and latency (30-90 seconds). It also clarifies the return type ('strategy signal with causal decomposition'). Minor gap: does not mention potential side effects, error states, or if the analysis is persisted.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, followed by critical timing warning, alternative suggestion, and parameter docs. Every sentence serves a distinct function. No redundant or filler text despite covering multiple dimensions (purpose, timing, alternatives, parameters).

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 existence of output schema (not shown but indicated), description appropriately focuses on invocation behavior rather than return value details. With only 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description successfully compensates by documenting both. The blocking latency warning is essential for a long-running operation and is included.

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 0%, requiring description to compensate fully. It documents both parameters: 'market_query' is clearly defined as the bet/market question, and 'risk_limit' is identified for position sizing constraints. Slight deduction because 'Reserved for position sizing constraints' lacks units or value semantics (currency vs percentage).

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?

Description opens with specific verb ('Run a full analysis') and resource ('strategy signal with causal decomposition'), clearly stating what the tool produces. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling async workflow ('analyze_market + check_analysis_status + get_analysis'), clarifying scope relative to alternatives.

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 alternative: 'For async control, use analyze_market + check_analysis_status + get_analysis instead.' The blocking nature (30-90 seconds) implicitly guides when to use this versus the async flow.

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