strategy_stochastic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does explain the return signal format, which is useful, but it omits key behavioral traits such as how the strategy fetches data, the exact overbought/oversold thresholds, or how the signal is derived from the stochastic oscillator. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 return-value definition. It is front-loaded, contains no redundant information, and every word contributes to understanding, making it highly effective.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description appropriately specifies the return mapping. However, with five parameters and no annotations, it remains lightweight: it does not explain the underlying signal logic (e.g., crossover thresholds, calculation details), which could leave an agent under-informed about decision-making nuances.

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 has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds interpretive context about 'overbought/oversold conditions' but does not elaborate on the meanings of 'period', 'signalPeriod', or 'limit' within the stochastic strategy beyond what the schema already provides.

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 that this tool generates trading signals based on the Stochastic Oscillator, with return values specified as -1 (SELL), 0 (HOLD), and 1 (BUY). It is specific about the resource and action, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling strategies beyond the name.

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 strategies like strategy_macd or indicator_stochastic. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this strategy is preferred, leaving the agent without clear direction.

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