strategy_emv

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses only the output signal values and the general basis (volume-price relationship), but omits important behaviors such as how the signal is derived, whether it uses lookback periods, or how missing data is handled.

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 sentence plus a clear return-value mapping. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, while still conveying the core purpose and output.

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 provides essential return semantics and the schema documents parameters, but lacks usage context and behavioral details. Given the large number of sibling strategy tools, more differentiation would improve completeness.

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 provides 100% coverage for all four parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to add much. However, it also does not enrich the parameters with strategy-specific context, such as how 'period' affects the EMV computation or how 'limit' impacts signal reliability.

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 identifies the tool as an Ease of Movement Strategy producing trading signals based on volume-price relationship, and explicitly defines the return values (-1, 0, 1). It distinguishes itself from raw indicator tools like indicator_emv by indicating signal output, but could be more explicit about its role versus other strategy_* tools.

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 instead of other strategy_* or indicator_* alternatives. The description gives no context about appropriate timeframes, market conditions, or integration with other tools.

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