strategy_apo

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the output mapping, but does not explain how signals are derived, what data is used, or any thresholds. The behavior remains opaque beyond the return values.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and output contract. It is efficiently structured with no fluff, though the brevity contributes to limited completeness.

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 a strategy tool among many similar siblings, the description lacks usage context and behavioral details. While the schema covers parameters, the description does not explain how this strategy fits with others or what the signal truly implies, making it minimal for selection and 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 has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the schema documents meaning well. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond reiterating the output encoding, which is already in the purpose.

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?

Description clearly states the tool generates trading signals based on the Absolute Price Oscillator and specifies the output encoding (-1 SELL, 0 HOLD, 1 BUY). This distinguishes it from indicator_apo and other strategy tools, though it could more explicitly contrast with sibling strategies.

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 such as strategy_macd or strategy_aroon. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions.

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