strategy

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

Discloses that it raises a not-found error when no strategy matches, and details the return fields (rozkoduj_score, CAGR, max_drawdown, etc.). No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false).

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?

Efficient single paragraph with line breaks for readability. First sentence states purpose, then explains identifier, then lists output fields. No redundant information.

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?

Covers input, output details, use case, and error behavior. The presence of an output schema (not shown) may complement, but the description alone is sufficiently complete for a single-parameter 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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds significant meaning: identifier is 'either the URL slug (e.g. `ma-cross-ema`) or the `algorithm_uid` (ULID, e.g. `01J7...`).' This fully compensates and provides clarity beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states 'One strategy's full dossier, including its backtest summary.' and specifies the input as either URL slug or algorithm_uid. Distinguishes from siblings like leaderboard by being about a single strategy's detailed data.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this after `leaderboard` once a candidate is chosen, or when the user names a strategy directly.' This provides clear context and an alternative (leaderboard), but does not mention when not to use.

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