traders.backtest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool simulates historical trades and calculates hypothetical P&L, but fails to mention whether it's read-only, if it has rate limits, data freshness, or limitations (e.g., past performance not indicative). This is minimal disclosure for a simulation tool.

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?

Three sentences are concise and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: the first states the function, the second explains the result, and the third gives usage guidance. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

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 covers the core purpose and usage but lacks details on expected output format (e.g., total profit, percentage, trade breakdown) and assumptions (e.g., slippage, fees). Without an output schema, the description should fill these gaps. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a backtesting tool.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by specifying that 'address' is an Ethereum wallet and referencing the default $5 for copy_budget, which reinforces schema info. It does not introduce new parameters but provides contextual clarity beyond 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 clearly states the tool simulates copying historical trades to calculate hypothetical P&L, with a specific verb (simulate) and resource (trader's history). It distinguishes from siblings like 'traders.analyze' or 'traders.score' which likely focus on current analysis or scoring, not backtesting.

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 use case: 'Use before adding a trader to your watchlist to validate their performance.' It also notes it's a 'Pro feature,' setting expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools.

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