compare_strategies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains that the tool runs strategies and returns a leaderboard, which is a read-only analysis. However, it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, rate limits, or computation time, which would enhance transparency for agent decision-making.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by an organized Args block. While slightly longer than strictly necessary, each sentence provides useful information and no redundancy is present.

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 main return value (leaderboard vs buy-and-hold benchmark) and all parameters, which is sufficient given the absence of an output schema. It lacks details on ranking criteria (e.g., return vs. risk) but overall provides adequate context for the agent to invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: symbol with examples, period with allowed values, initial_capital with default, and interval with default. This goes well beyond the schema's bare titles and provides actionable semantics.

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 'Run' and clearly states the resource ('all 6 strategies') and the output ('ranked performance leaderboard'). It lists the exact strategies, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like backtest_strategy that focus 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 usage for comparing all six strategies on the same symbol, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as backtest_strategy or walk_forward_backtest_strategy. No exclusions or preferred scenarios are given, leaving the agent to infer context.

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