strategy_ichimoku

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by specifying the return values (-1/0/1) and that it derives signals from the Ichimoku indicator. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as whether it fetches OHLCV data, how missing data is handled, or if it is suitable for real-time or historical use, leaving gaps in 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 extremely concise: one title phrase and a single sentence about returns. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and output, with zero wasted words, making it easy 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?

For a tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It explains the return values but not the strategy logic, how periods affect signals, interpretation of the signal in trading context, or any side effects. Given the complexity of Ichimoku, a richer description is needed for full agent comprehension.

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 has 100% description coverage for all six parameters, providing clear meaning for symbol, limit, timeframe, and periods. The description adds no additional parameter context or relationships, so it earns the baseline score without adding extra value.

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 the tool provides trading signals from the Ichimoku indicator, a specific resource with a clear output type. It distinguishes from sibling indicator and strategy tools by defining the signal values (-1, 0, 1) and the Ichimoku basis, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this strategy versus alternatives like indicator_ichimoku or other strategy_* tools. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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