backtest_strategy

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

The description discloses that the tool runs a backtest on historical data, optionally including trade log and equity curve. It implies a read-only computation. Without annotations, this is sufficient, though it could mention data sources or performance characteristics.

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?

Well-structured with a clear one-sentence summary followed by an Args list. Slightly verbose but all information is relevant and efficiently presented.

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?

Covers inputs thoroughly but does not describe the output structure beyond mentioning 'institutional-grade metrics' and optional logs. Without an output schema, the description should provide more detail on return format.

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 description provides comprehensive parameter documentation with examples (e.g., symbol examples, strategy list, period options), default values, and units. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only has types and defaults.

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?

Describes the tool as backtesting a trading strategy on historical data with institutional-grade metrics. The verb 'backtest' and resource 'strategy' are specific, but the description does not differentiate from closely related siblings like 'compare_strategies' or 'walk_forward_backtest_strategy'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists parameters but does not provide context for strategy selection, period, or comparison with other backtesting tools.

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