strategy_aroon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output semantics (-1 for SELL, 0 for HOLD, 1 for BUY), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not explain that the tool fetches OHLCV data, how it handles insufficient data, or any other operational details. It adds some context beyond the schema but remains incomplete.

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: one defining the strategy and one listing the return values. It is front-loaded with the tool name and purpose, and every word adds value. No fluff 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description combined with the schema is largely complete. It explains the output and the parameters are well-documented in the schema. However, it could be improved by noting that it relies on OHLCV data and that the strategy is based on market data, which would help the agent understand the data dependency. Still, for a basic signal generator, this is adequate.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema. It does not clarify how 'limit', 'period', or 'timeframe' influence the signal, so no extra value is provided.

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 it is an Aroon Strategy that generates trading signals based on trend changes and strength, and specifies the output values (-1, 0, 1). It names the specific resource (Aroon) and the action (strategy signal generation), but does not explicitly differentiate from other strategy_* sibling tools beyond the name.

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 other strategy or indicator tools. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or appropriate contexts beyond the generic 'trading signals' phrase. With many sibling strategy tools, this lack of direction is a clear gap.

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