strategy_mfi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the output format and return semantics, and the algorithm basis (volume-weighted RSI), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what market data it uses, or whether it executes trades, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise sentence followed by a clear return-value legend. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and every word adds value. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema exists.

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 lacks an output schema but the description does explain the return values, and the input schema fully documents all parameters. However, given the large sibling context, there is a notable absence of usage guidance and no information about how parameters like timeframe or limit influence the signal, leaving the description minimally viable rather than complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all four parameters (limit, period, symbol, timeframe). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning volume-weighted RSI, which loosely relates to the 'period' parameter. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a 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 this is a Money Flow Index strategy that generates trading signals based on volume-weighted RSI, and explicitly lists the three possible return values (-1, 0, 1) with their meanings. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling indicator_mfi or other strategy_* tools, but the 'trading signals' and discrete BUY/SELL/HOLD output make the core function clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative indicator or strategy tools. There is no mention of suitable market conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The available sibling tools include many strategy_* and indicator_* tools, and without any selection criteria the agent cannot easily decide when this tool is preferred.

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