strategy_vwma

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the return signal values, which is useful, and implies a read-only operation. However, it omits the signal logic, data fetching behavior, and any side effects, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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: two sentences covering purpose and return values. It is front-loaded and free of fluff. It loses a point for not structuring the return mapping more clearly, but overall it is efficient.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description needs to be more comprehensive. It does not specify the output structure (e.g., raw integer vs. JSON object), explain the signal conditions, or mention data requirements. Given the large set of sibling strategy tools, this lack of detail increases ambiguity.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter context, such as how 'period' or 'timeframe' affects the signal, nor any examples.

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 identifies the tool as a VWMA strategy that produces trading signals (-1, 0, 1), distinguishing it from indicator_vwma which likely returns raw VWMA values. The verb is implied rather than explicit ('trading signals based on...'), but the intent is clear.

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 strategy versus other strategy_* tools, nor when to prefer it over indicator_vwma. The description states what it does but offers no context for selection or exclusions.

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