pk_battle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: both strategies start with the same balance and run independently, then results are compared with a PK card. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., does it mutate account state? does it place real orders?), which is important given sibling tools like buy/sell/reset_account. The description adds some behavioral context but not enough for a tool that likely executes strategies.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter explanations are brief and useful. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating parameter docs from the main description), but it earns its place with no filler.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), which reduces the need to explain return values. However, for a tool that runs strategies, the description lacks critical context: does it execute real trades or simulate? Does it require an initialized account? What happens on strategy errors? Given the sibling set includes backtest and real trading tools, this ambiguity is a meaningful gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains strategy_a/b as dotted Python paths with an example, and name_a/b as display names for the PK card. It does not explain the 'balance' parameter, but the description mentions 'Both start with the same balance,' which implies its meaning. This is decent compensation for a 0% coverage schema, though balance could be more explicit.

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's function: run two strategies head-to-head in a PK battle, starting with the same balance, comparing results, and announcing a winner. It distinguishes itself from siblings like backtest (single strategy) and pk_card (likely just displays a card) by describing the head-to-head comparison flow.

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 implies usage: provide two strategies and optional names/balance. It does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like backtest or resolve, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., strategies must be importable Python paths). The context is clear enough for a simple head-to-head comparison, but no exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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