strategy_psar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return values but does not clarify whether the result is a single signal or an array of signals, nor does it mention that the tool fetches OHLCV data or any side effects (e.g., read-only nature). This ambiguity is a significant gap for agents.

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 concise, with only two sentences that are front-loaded with the tool's identity and output values. No redundant information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

While the schema covers parameters and the description covers return values, there is no output schema and the description does not resolve ambiguity about output shape (single integer vs series). For a tool with moderate complexity, this missing detail prevents full confidence in invocation and interpretation.

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 parameters (symbol, limit, timeframe, acceleration factors) are already well documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the return contract, which is acceptable per the baseline.

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 it is a Parabolic SAR Strategy generating trading signals based on trend reversal points, with explicit output mapping (-1/0/1). This distinguishes it from raw indicator tools like indicator_psar and other strategy variants by describing its action and output contract.

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 other strategy/indicator alternatives. The description implies it is for trend-reversal signals but does not mention selection criteria, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as strategy_macd or indicator_psar.

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