traders.backtest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full burden. It correctly states the tool performs a simulation ('hypothetical P&L') and is non-destructive. However, it lacks disclosure on potential limitations like data latency, rate limits, or response format.

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 concise—three sentences front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, when to use, and a feature designation. No redundancy or fluff.

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 simulation tool with no output schema, the description gives sufficient context for an AI agent to understand its function and usage. It could optionally detail the return value format, but the core purpose is clear.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (address and copy_budget). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating defaults (e.g., '$5 default'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3.

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 purpose: simulate copy-trading a trader's historical trades to calculate hypothetical P&L. It uses a specific verb ('simulate', 'calculate') and resource ('trader's historical trades'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like traders.analyze or traders.score.

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 explicitly recommends using the tool 'before adding a trader to your watchlist to validate their performance', providing clear context for when to invoke it. It also notes it's a 'Pro feature', implying access restrictions, though it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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