Get Strategy Performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is fully covered. The description adds only that results are aggregated per strategy, which is modest added value over the structured fields; it says nothing about caching, freshness, or scope of the aggregation.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the evaluative use case. 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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is unnecessary, and the two optional filters are covered by the schema. The remaining gap is the absence of any indication of metric coverage (e.g., which stats are aggregated) or comparison semantics, but the definition is adequate 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 100%, so both filters (symbol, strategy_name) are already fully documented in the schema, including their default-all behavior. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get aggregate performance stats per strategy.' An agent immediately knows this returns rolled-up per-strategy metrics. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling strategy tools like validate_strategy or evolution_run_backtest, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Use this to evaluate which strategies are working and which need adjustment' implies the use case but gives no when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and does not name an alternative tool for related needs. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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