strategy_macd

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value contract, which is useful, but doesn't explain how the signal is determined (e.g., MACD crossover thresholds), whether it uses historical data, or that it does not execute trades. This is adequate but leaves gaps about processing behavior.

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 and front-loaded: name, strategy type, and return encoding in one sentence. Every word earns its place. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple signal-generation tool, the description covers the core output but lacks usage context, parameter guidance, and behavioral details. With no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally viable but not rich enough for an agent to fully understand when and how to invoke it.

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, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. Since all parameters are described in the schema, this is acceptable.

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 this as a MACD-based trading strategy and specifies the output encoding (-1 SELL, 0 HOLD, 1 BUY). It implicitly distinguishes itself from indicator_macd by stating it returns directional signals rather than raw MACD values. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'generates') and reads more as a label than an action.

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 alternatives. With many sibling strategy_* tools (strategy_rsi, strategy_apo, etc.), there is no mention of selection criteria, differences, or exclusions. The description only implies use for generating trading signals.

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