strategy_cmf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key output behavior: returns -1 (SELL), 0 (HOLD), 1 (BUY), and states it is based on buying/selling pressure. However, it omits the signal interpretation rule (e.g., threshold or zero-line crossover) and how the CMF calculation maps to the signal, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the indicator name and strategy type. The first phrase is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the second sentence about return values provides distinct value. There is no filler, though a more structured expansion could improve usability.

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 simple nature and full schema coverage, the description adequately explains the return values (critical since there is no output schema). However, it lacks context on how the signal is derived, what data inputs are used, and when to invoke the tool. It is minimally complete for a straightforward strategy tool but leaves clear usage gaps.

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 covers all four parameters (symbol, limit, period, timeframe) with descriptions, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, such as how 'period' affects signal sensitivity or how 'timeframe' changes the data granularity. It neither enhances nor conflicts with the schema.

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 Chaikin Money Flow strategy that produces trading signals, and it specifies the return mapping (-1/0/1). It distinguishes itself from the sibling indicator_cmf (raw CMF values) by framing itself as a strategy with a discrete signal. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'computes' or 'generates,' and it doesn't differentiate among the many 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., sufficient OHLCV history) or cases where a different strategy or the raw indicator_cmf tool would be more appropriate. There are no exclusions or alternative references.

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