compare_strategies

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses use of Yahoo Finance data and runs exactly 6 strategies, but doesn't detail pagination, output format, rate limits, or what happens on missing data.

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, front-loads the main action (run all 6 strategies, return leaderboard), and uses a clean Args list with minimal but sufficient detail. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should clarify the leaderboard structure. It only says 'ranked leaderboard' without specifying columns or metrics. This is a minor gap. Otherwise, for a 4-param tool with good param descriptions, it's fairly complete.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides meaningful context for all parameters: symbol is a Yahoo Finance symbol with examples, period lists accepted values with defaults, initial capital is described as starting capital in USD, and interval is explained as daily or hourly. This adds value beyond the schema's bare types.

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 explicitly states it runs all 6 named strategies and returns a ranked leaderboard, making the tool's purpose specific and distinguishable from siblings like backtest_strategy which likely focuses on a single 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?

The description implies the tool is for comparing multiple strategies, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. However, from sibling names, it's clear when this should be preferred over backtest_strategy or bollinger_scan.

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