strategy_momentum

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

The description discloses the output format and its meanings, which is useful. However, it does not mention that the tool likely fetches OHLCV data based on the provided symbol and timeframe/limit, nor does it address potential failure conditions or data requirements beyond the schema.

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 plus a compact return-value legend. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words.

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 strategy tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and output mapping, but lacks guidance on parameter effects, use cases, and data fetching behavior. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema descriptions already cover all four parameters, and the tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the general notion of 'momentum'. The baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 the tool as a momentum strategy generating trading signals, with explicit return value mapping (-1, 0, 1). However, it does not contrast itself with other sibling strategy tools such as strategy_macd or strategy_rsi2, so some differentiation is missing.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to select this tool over alternative strategies or what conditions warrant using momentum-based signals. It only describes the tool's basic function without any 'use this when' or 'instead of' statements.

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