nt_strategies_running

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'Local mode only' adds a behavioral constraint. However, it does not disclose potential errors, connection requirements, or side effects (though clearly a read operation), leaving some gaps.

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 consists of two concise sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and no redundant information. Every word adds value.

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 simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently describes functionality and lists the output fields. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit return format (e.g., array of objects), but the fields listed are enough for an agent to infer the shape.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The description has nothing to add beyond the baseline, which is 4 for no-parameter tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('currently running NinjaScript strategies'), and enumerates the returned fields (state, chart ID, symbol). The 'Local mode only' constraint further specifies scope, distinguishing it from strategy management tools like nt_strategy_stop.

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 provides a clear context for use by stating it only applies to local mode, implying it should not be used for live trading. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use beyond the local mode constraint, so it falls 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.