stratverity_quick_check

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses one key behavioral trait — 'Never executes the code' — which clearly signals a safe, read-only static operation and distinguishes it from potentially code-executing alternatives. It does not disclose result accuracy or best-effort nature, but the single core safety disclosure is meaningful.

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?

A single sentence that fronts the purpose, lists the specific diagnostic categories in a parenthetical, and closes with the safety caveat. Zero filler or redundancy.

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 definition is adequate for a simple 2-param tool, covering what it checks and the safety behavior. However, with no output schema present and no mention of return value format, diagnostic result semantics, or what the agent should do with the output, there is a notable gap for a tool whose sole deliverable is a diagnostic result.

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 50%. The 'source' parameter is documented in schema ('Strategy source code excerpt'), which is adequate but not enriched by the description. 'language' is self-documenting via its enum (pinescript/python/mql5) and default. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair ('diagnostic of strategy code') and enumerates three concrete checks (look-ahead, repainting, overfitting), which sharply distinguishes it from the siblings stratverity_verify_hash and stratverity_get_badge. Purpose is explicit and unique.

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 intended use (static analysis of strategy source) is clear, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference to the sibling tools (verify_hash, get_badge). The phrase 'Never executes the code' hints at safety rather than usage conditions S46. No exclusions or alternative-selection conditions are provided.

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