strategy_bop

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

The description discloses the output mapping and the basis (buying/selling pressure), which is useful. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose whether the tool requires sufficient historical data, how parameters like period and limit affect results, potential error conditions, or whether it is a read-only calculation. These gaps leave significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 and front-loaded with the strategy name and output format. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling family, the description should clarify data dependencies, when to use it, and how it relates to indicator_bop. It only provides the return values, which is insufficient for confident and correct invocation in all contexts.

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%, and the schema already explains limit, period, symbol, and timeframe. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the 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 identifies the tool as a 'Balance of Power Strategy' and specifies the output as trading signals (-1, 0, 1), giving a concrete verb+resource. It distinguishes from raw indicator tools by using 'Strategy' and defining the signal mapping, but it does not explicitly contrast with other strategy tools in the sibling list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other strategy_* or indicator_* tools. It does not state prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions for use, leaving an agent without a basis for tool selection.

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