compare_strategies

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

With no annotations, the description discloses an important behavioral trait: strategies with SMA200 warmup may contribute zero trades if period < 1y. This is valuable beyond the schema.

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?

Two paragraphs are efficient: first line states purpose, second block format lists arguments. Every sentence adds value, though the structure could be slightly more formal.

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 description explains input constraints well but lacks details about the output (e.g., leaderboard fields). Given 4 parameters and no output schema, it is moderately complete but could provide more return value context.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description adds meaning by listing valid period options, recommending >=1y for certain strategies, and explaining defaults for interval and initial_capital.

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 it runs all 9 specified strategies and returns a ranked leaderboard. This distinguishes it from single-strategy backtest tools like backtest_strategy.

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 it is for quick comparison of multiple strategies but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. No when-not or exclusions are provided.

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