strategy_typical_price

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output contract (BUY/SELL/HOLD) and the base computation (average of high/low/close), but it does not explain how the signal is derived from the typical price, what data is fetched, or any error/edge-case behavior, leaving key mechanics opaque.

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 tightly written sentences that deliver the title, purpose, and return contract with zero redundancy. The em-dash and 'Returns:' structure front-loads the key information effectively.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers return values and the computation basis. However, it omits the signal generation logic (e.g., threshold or crossover conditions) and how parameters like period or limit affect the signals, leaving gaps for correct 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 the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'average of high, low, close' relates to the OHLCV inputs but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents for limit, period, symbol, and timeframe.

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 this is a trading signal strategy based on the typical price (average of high, low, close) and explicitly defines the return contract (-1 SELL, 0 HOLD, 1 BUY). The 'Strategy' label and the discrete signal outputs distinguish it from the sibling indicator_typical_price, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.

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 alternative strategy or indicator tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives, so the agent receives no direction on selecting this over the many sibling strategies.

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