strategy_williams_r

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does explain the output semantics (SELL/HOLD/BUY) and the general momentum logic, but it doesn't describe internal details like thresholds, whether it fetches data, or how parameters affect the signal. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the name and purpose, followed by a compact return-value mapping. Every word adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 simple strategy with four well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential information: the signal generation basis and the meaning of the three possible return values. It lacks detail on thresholds or data fetching but is sufficient for a straightforward strategy tool.

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 descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond the schema, but the schema already provides clear meanings for symbol, limit, period, 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 identifies the tool as a Williams %R strategy that generates trading signals based on momentum overbought/oversold levels, and specifies the return encoding (-1, 0, 1). It is specific enough to distinguish from indicator_williams_r, which likely returns raw indicator values, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools.

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 compared to other strategies (e.g., strategy_macd, strategy_rsi2) or indicator tools. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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