compare_strategies

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context, such as the consequence of using shorter periods ('otherwise they contribute zero trades'), which is not apparent from annotations or 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?

The description is well-structured with a concise action sentence followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence provides necessary information, and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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 read-only analysis tool with clear parameters and caveats, the description is nearly complete. It lacks details on the exact ranking metrics in the returned leaderboard, but this is not essential for selecting or invoking the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains every parameter: symbol with examples, period with allowed values and a warmup caveat, initial_capital with default, and interval with '1d' vs '1h'. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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's function: 'Run all 9 strategies... and return a ranked leaderboard.' It enumerates the exact strategies, making it highly specific and distinct from sibling tools like backtest_strategy or multi_agent_analysis.

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 clear context for parameter usage, especially the recommendation that 'period >= "1y"' is needed for rsi_pullback and triple_ema to complete SMA200 warmup. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state when to choose it over similar backtesting tools.

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