strategy_kdj

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output signals, which is important, but does not explain how parameters like limit, period, timeframe, or signalPeriod affect the calculation, nor what data is fetched. The mention of 'combining stochastic and momentum' gives some insight but lacks deeper procedural detail.

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: two sentences front-load the strategy name and output format. Every word adds value with no filler 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source for return values, which it does provide. However, it lacks explanation of how inputs influence signals, the data source, or error behavior. For a 5-parameter tool, this is acceptable but leaves clear gaps for a fully informed agent.

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% coverage with each parameter described (symbol, limit, period, timeframe, signalPeriod). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 is a KDJ Strategy that generates trading signals combining stochastic and momentum, and specifies the exact return values (-1, 0, 1). This distinguishes it from sibling indicator tools like indicator_kdj and other strategy tools by naming the specific strategy and output.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the many other strategy or indicator tools in the sibling list. There are no alternative recommendations or exclusions; the description only states what it does without contextualizing its appropriate use.

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