tastytrade_list_backtests

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral context. It indicates authentication scope and the 'submitted' filter, and 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, response shape, or whether in-progress backtests are included.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, resource, and scope economically, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 simple parameterless list operation, the description gives enough to know what the tool returns conceptually. It lacks explicit return-field or pagination details, but with no output schema, that is a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are simply not applicable.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('backtests'), and adds a scope qualifier ('submitted for the authenticated tastytrade API grant'). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools such as get_backtest, create_backtest, and get_backtest_logs.

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 intended use is implied: call this to see all submitted backtests for the grant. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to a sibling alternative, so an agent has to infer the boundary from the name.

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