audit_trading_strategy_overfitting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the analytical gates performed, including 1,000-run Monte Carlo stress and MQL5 linting, which gives useful insight into the tool's internal behavior. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, runtime expectations, or what the response contains, leaving significant gaps.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the purpose first and then enumerates the gates. Every element contributes to understanding the tool, and there is no filler. It is dense but appropriately sized for the complexity of the operation.

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?

This is a complex analytical tool with seven gates, no output schema, no annotations, and incomplete parameter documentation. The description gives a useful high-level overview but omits return values, output structure, parameter meanings, and any performance or side-effect context. An agent would need substantially more information to invoke it with confidence.

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 only 33%: the strategies parameter is documented, but initialBalance and monteCarloRuns have no descriptions. The tool description never explains what any parameter means, what the strategies object should contain beyond the schema's brief hint, or how initialBalance and monteCarloRuns affect the audit. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Audit ... backtests') and enumerates the seven institutional gates, making the tool's function immediately clear. It is easily distinguishable from the only related sibling, optimize_multi_strategy_portfolio, which optimizes rather than audits. The scope is precise enough for an agent to know what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 implies when the tool is useful by specifying that it audits MT5, MT4, TradingView, and quant backtests across defined gates. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over optimize_multi_strategy_portfolio or outlines any exclusions. Usage is inferable but not directly guided.

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