run_backtest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does add useful behavioral context: it consumes a quota, demands confirm=true, and must not be used for live trading. Yet it omits other effects such as whether the operation is destructive, how long it runs, or what happens if confirm is false.

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 two tightly written sentences with no filler. The most critical information — the confirm requirement and quota consumption — appears first, and the live-trading warning is a clear, extra safety boundary.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is too thin. It covers the invocation guardrail but omits practical details like date format expectations, parameter relationships, what results are returned, and how this differs from preview_backtest.

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 must compensate, but it only addresses the confirm parameter. It gives no meaning for startDate, endDate, lots, expiry, target, stopLoss, entryTime, exitTime, or underlying, leaving the agent to infer everything from raw schema constraints.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Configure and run'), a distinct resource ('AlgoTest Backtester'), and notes it is not for live trading. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like backtest_strategy or preview_backtest, so it is clear but not fully distinctive.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite ('Requires confirm=true') and a rationale ('consumes a backtest quota'), plus an exclusion ('Never use for live trading'). It does not say when to prefer this tool over preview_backtest or backtest_strategy, leaving relative usage context implicit.

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