strategy_ao

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does disclose the output behavior (signal values and their meanings), which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the tool fetches OHLCV data, makes network calls, has side effects, or how it handles errors. The provided return semantics are a positive, but not enough for a higher score.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence plus return value legend. It front-loads the purpose and provides essential output semantics with zero filler. 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is underspecified. It lacks context on how parameters affect the signal, when to use it, and what data it relies on. While it does explain return values, it does not cover the expected behavior or edge cases, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context (e.g., that fastPeriod and slowPeriod are the AO's default 5/34 periods). Since the schema already describes the parameters adequately, the description does not need to compensate.

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 computes Awesome Oscillator trading signals based on market momentum, and explicitly lists the return values (-1 SELL, 0 HOLD, 1 BUY). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like indicator_ao (which likely computes the oscillator itself) by focusing on signal generation. However, it lacks a specific verb like 'generates' or 'calculates' and does not mention the input scope (symbol/timeframe).

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 strategy versus other strategy tools (e.g., strategy_macd, strategy_rsi2) or indicator_ao. The description does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or alternatives. It only implies usage through the title and return values, but there is no explicit when/how guidance.

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