run_backtest

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists built-in strategies and return metrics, but does not mention side effects (e.g., modification of state), authorization requirements, or rate limits. The description gives a moderate level of transparency but lacks critical behavioral details.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the primary purpose. However, it lacks structure such as separating usage from parameters. It could be more concise about parameter details, but overall it is reasonably compact.

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 the tool has 6 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema is present but not detailed, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter formats, dependencies, or how to properly configure a backtest. The high-level overview is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 should explain all parameters. It only mentions strategy_type by listing built-in strategies, but does not describe strategy_params, universe, start, end, or initial_capital. This is insufficient for parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '执行量化策略回测' (execute quantitative strategy backtest). It lists built-in strategies and key output metrics, making the verb and resource unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are primarily data retrieval functions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings are data retrieval tools, the description does not explicitly state that this tool is for backtesting simulation, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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