strategy_bollinger_bands

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value mapping (-1 SELL, 0 HOLD, 1 BUY) and that signals are based on price breaking through bands. However, it does not clarify the exact interpretation of 'breaking through' (e.g., closes above/below bands) or any nuances in signal generation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose and output format without any filler. It is compact and immediately useful.

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?

The description explains the return values and the general strategy concept, and the schema covers all parameters. However, there is no output schema, and the description could benefit from a more precise behavioral explanation (e.g., how breakouts trigger buy/sell) and relationships to sibling tools, leaving slight ambiguity for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a Bollinger Bands Strategy that produces trading signals (-1/0/1) based on price breaking through bands. This distinguishes it from the sibling indicator_bollinger_bands, which likely returns band values rather than trading signals.

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?

The description implies usage through the term 'strategy' and the signal output, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other strategy tools (e.g., strategy_macd) or indicator_bollinger_bands. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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