strategy_nvi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output contract (-1/0/1 with SELL/HOLD/BUY meanings) and the theoretical basis ('smart money movements'), adding value beyond the schema. But it does not disclose data-fetching behavior, error handling for insufficient data, or explicitly confirm read-only status.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the strategy name and followed by the output contract. Every clause earns its place—'smart money movements' explains the basis, and the return mapping is essential. Zero wasted 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?

The schema covers all parameters with defaults and descriptions, and the description specifies the full output contract in the absence of an output schema. Missing elements include how the strategy uses fetched OHLCV data, behavior on invalid symbols/timeframes, and explicit read-only confirmation. For a simple signal tool, this is largely sufficient.

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 has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, providing the baseline of 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema about how limit, period, or timeframe affect the signal; it only frames the tool as NVI-based, which is marginal additional context.

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 'Negative Volume Index Strategy - trading signals based on smart money movements' and explicitly defines the output as -1 (SELL), 0 (HOLD), 1 (BUY). This identifies a signal-generation tool for the NVI indicator and distinguishes it from generic siblings by naming the specific strategy, though it does not explicitly contrast with other strategy_* tools.

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 phrase 'trading signals based on smart money movements' implies the tool is for NVI-based market analysis, giving some context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, no exclusions, and no guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like strategy_macd or indicator_nvi.

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