strategy_vwap

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

The description discloses the return values and indicates it is based on VWAP, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, that no trades are executed, or any limitations. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and only partially fulfills it.

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, consisting of one sentence plus a return mapping. It is front-loaded with the strategy name and immediately communicates the core purpose and output, with no wasted words.

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 tool is relatively simple, and the schema thoroughly documents all parameters. The description covers the return values, but lacks some context such as whether the tool fetches live data, how the period parameter affects computation, or any default behavior. Still, it is sufficient for basic usage.

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 already describes all four parameters (limit, period, symbol, timeframe) with default values and definitions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool generates trading signals based on VWAP and specifies the output values (-1, 0, 1), which distinguishes it from other strategy tools that use different indicators. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'computes' or 'generates', making it slightly less direct.

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 strategy versus alternatives, no context for interpreting signals, and no exclusions or prerequisites. It only states the basic output format, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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