backtest_strategy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool never performs live trading and explains the preview-versus-run conditional based on confirm. This adds meaningful safety and control information, though it does not cover side effects like result persistence or browser interaction hinted at by close_browser.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main action and conditional behavior are front-loaded, and the critical safety note ('Never performs live trading') is isolated at the end. Every word earns its place.

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 core invoke condition and safety, but with no output schema it omits what a 'preview' looks like, whether results are returned directly or need to be fetched via get_results, and how this tool relates to the sibling run/preview tools. An agent can call it correctly but may not know the follow-up steps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'request' is identified as a natural-language strategy, and 'confirm' is explained as the switch that triggers a run rather than a preview. For two simple parameters this is adequate, though a format example for request would strengthen it further.

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 states a clear action: accept a natural-language strategy request, configure the backtester, and conditionally return a preview or run it. The verb and resource are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling preview_backtest and run_backtest tools, which appear to offer the same behaviors separately.

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 natural-language strategy requests but gives no guidance on when to use this combined tool versus calling preview_backtest or run_backtest directly. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, leaving the agent to guess the correct routing among siblings.

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