TradingView-only: strategy comparison

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral weight, and it partially does: it discloses the TradingView data source and that results come back in a TRADINGVIEW-labelled envelope. It does not say whether the call is read-only versus state-changing, whether it is expensive/long-running (it runs a backtest across all strategies), or whether it needs credentials. The output schema covers the return shape, so the return sentence is bonus rather than load-bearing.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the purpose sits in the first sentence, followed by a short Args block and a Returns line. Nothing is padded or redundant enough to distract. The Args list is thin rather than bloated, so brevity here is not the problem.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain the return payload, and the essentials (one symbol, a period, starting cash) are present. However, for a comparison tool it never says how many strategies are evaluated, what the leaderboard is ranked on, or how costly the call is. Adequate to invoke, but thin for interpreting or planning around the result.

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 must compensate and largely does not: "symbol: Ticker", "period: Lookback period", and "initial_capital: Starting cash" merely restate the parameter titles. Critical format details are absent — whether period takes "1y"/"6mo" style strings, what ticker convention/exchange applies, and what currency initial_capital is in. Only "Ticker" adds anything 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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Compare every strategy on one symbol", which clearly separates it from the sibling stock_backtest (single strategy on a symbol). The parenthetical "TradingView-only" further pins the scope. It stops just short of 5 because "every strategy" is never enumerated, leaving the scope of the comparison fuzzy.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word "Compare" and the tool name; there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over stock_backtest or combined_analysis. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are given. An agent can infer the intent but must guess at the boundary with its nearest sibling.

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