strategy_force_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output contract clearly but does not describe data fetching behavior (e.g., using OHLCV data via limit/timeframe), how the signal is derived beyond 'price movement power', or any limitations such as required data points.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's name and purpose, then the return value map. Every word is informative, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It explains return values but lacks information on parameter influence, data requirements, or when to select this strategy among many siblings, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, with meaningful descriptions for all four parameters (symbol, limit, period, timeframe). The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond stating the strategy's basis, so the 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 states it provides trading signals based on Force Index and explicitly lists the return values (-1 SELL, 0 HOLD, 1 BUY). This distinguishes it as a strategy tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling indicator_force_index, which is a minor gap.

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 versus alternative strategy tools or indicator_force_index. There is no mention of prerequisites, market conditions, or decision-making context, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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