strategy_vortex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the return semantics (SELL/HOLD/BUY), which is useful, but it lacks details about data requirements, edge cases, or whether the operation is read-only. It meets basic expectations but not a richer behavioral picture.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the strategy, the underlying concept, and the output values. There is no redundant information, and key details are front-loaded.

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 that there is no output schema, the description appropriately covers the return values. Parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the tool's purpose is clear. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit comparison to the raw 'indicator_vortex' tool, but overall the description is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 does not add any meaning beyond the schema for parameters like period, limit, symbol, or timeframe; it simply restates the strategy concept. Thus, the schema already handles parameter semantics adequately.

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's function: generating trading signals based on trend direction and strength using the Vortex strategy, and explicitly defines return values (-1, 0, 1). This distinguishes it from other strategy_* tools by naming the Vortex basis and its signal output.

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?

Usage is implied from the description (i.e., use when needing a Vortex-based trend signal), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like 'indicator_vortex' or other strategy tools. No exclusions or when-not conditions are provided.

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