strategy_projection_oscillator

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 return value mapping, which is useful, but it omits details such as how signals are derived, any implications of the period or limit parameters, or whether the tool has side effects. The behavior is partially transparent but not comprehensive.

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, only two sentences, with the essential information front-loaded. It clearly states the tool's purpose and output format without any 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 description explains the return values, which is helpful given there is no output schema. However, it lacks broader context such as the mechanics of the projected trading range, the significance of the 'hold' signal, or any example usage. It is minimally sufficient for a simple strategy tool but not rich.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add additional context about how parameters affect the strategy calculation, but it does not need to compensate since 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 states the tool produces trading signals based on a projected trading range, with explicit return values (-1, 0, 1) for SELL, HOLD, BUY. This distinguishes it from the sibling indicator_projection_oscillator, which likely returns the raw oscillator values. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this strategy tool versus other strategy_* tools or the indicator counterpart. The description does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and the sibling list.

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