render_strategy_reportRender a completed backtest strategy report as Markdown or JSON, providing readable or structured output for sharing and analysis.
Render a successful canonical result as Markdown or JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | ||
| output_format | No | markdown |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description needs only to add context beyond those. It adds a success precondition and the output format behavior, but does not describe potential side effects, authentication needs, or response structure; the output schema likely covers return details.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It conveys the core action and output options efficiently, even though the term 'canonical' could be clearer.
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?
Given the simple two-parameter read-only nature and the presence of an output schema, this is close to adequate for basic invocation. The main gaps are the undefined 'canonical result' terminology and the lack of explicit differentiation from sibling result/report tools, which is important given the large sibling set.
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 partially compensates by mapping 'Markdown or JSON' to output_format and connecting run_id to a successful canonical result. However, it does not clarify the exact run_id format or enumerate all valid output_format values beyond the two mentioned.
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 action ('Render') and the resource ('a successful canonical result'), and it names the output formats (Markdown or JSON). It is not a tautology and is broadly distinguishable from siblings like get_run_result because it emphasizes formatting, though 'canonical result' is domain jargon that is not fully defined.
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 word 'successful' implies the tool should only be used when a successful canonical result already exists, giving an implicit usage condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to choose this renderer over related result/report tools such as get_run_result, compare_strategy_runs, or get_run_logs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.