backtest_strategy

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

The description explains the strategy logic (cross conditions) and compares to buy-and-hold. Since no annotations exist, it adequately covers behavior. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 sections (PRO tag, strategy, args, examples) and is informative without being excessively long. Minor redundancy (repeating defaults in examples) could be trimmed.

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 strategy, parameters, and examples adequately. It might benefit from mentioning data prerequisites or output format, but the output schema exists. Overall complete 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by listing and explaining all five parameters, including defaults and examples (e.g., symbol, short_window, long_window, period, initial_capital).

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: backtesting a Simple Moving Average (SMA) crossover strategy. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from the many sibling tools.

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 usage context and examples, showing when to use this tool for SMA crossover backtesting. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools.

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