加密货币策略回测

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'simple backtest' and does not explain what the tool returns, whether it is simulation-only, or how it handles data or strategy settings. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output 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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler: it names the action, the data basis, and the supported strategies compactly. It is concise without being under-specified in structure.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the agent lacks information about return values and invocation behavior. The tool is forgiving because all parameters are optional, but the missing output semantics and lack of differentiation from `backtest_strategy` leave too much to guess.

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 100%, and every parameter has a default and description, so the baseline applies. The description's mention of SMA/RSI/MACD merely echoes the `strategy` parameter and adds no extra constraints, syntax, or relational guidance beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('简单策略回测') on historical price data and technical indicators, and explicitly names SMA/RSI/MACD. The title adds 'cryptocurrency', which distinguishes it from the sibling `backtest_strategy`, though the description body itself does not name the asset class.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `backtest_strategy` or `trading_suggest`. The only scoping signal is the title, and an agent cannot infer when this should be preferred over the generic backtest sibling.

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