strategy_cfo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the output format (-1, 0, 1) and their meanings, which is helpful. However, it does not explain how the strategy derives signals from the Chande Forecast Oscillator, how the parameters affect results, or any limitations. This is minimal behavioral transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's identity and output. It is concise and free of unnecessary information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential return values and the strategy's basis. The schema covers parameter details. However, it lacks a brief note on how parameters influence the signal or any prerequisites, which would improve completeness. Still, it is adequate for a strategy tool.

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 already provides descriptions for all four parameters (symbol, limit, period, timeframe), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics or context, so it provides no value beyond the schema. A baseline score 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 the Chande Forecast Oscillator Strategy, with a specific purpose of generating trading signals based on price predictions. It also explicitly lists the return values (-1 SELL, 0 HOLD, 1 BUY), which distinguishes it from raw indicator tools and other strategy siblings.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this strategy compared to other strategy_* tools or the indicator_cfo tool. There are no explicit alternatives or conditions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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