加密货币策略回测

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects, return format, data source, or limitations. The term 'simple' hints at limited scope but provides no concrete behavioral details such as whether it places real orders or only simulates.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the main action, and no filler words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool description.

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 and no behavioral info in the description, it is insufficient for an agent to understand what the backtest returns or the tool's limitations. It lacks details on result format, time period, or any caveats.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having descriptions and defaults. The tool description reiterates strategy options (SMA/RSI/MACD) already present in the schema, adding minimal value. Baseline of 3 is appropriate due to high 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?

The description clearly states a specific action: conducting simple strategy backtesting on crypto historical prices with technical indicators (SMA/RSI/MACD). The verb '回测' (backtest) and resource 'crypto' distinguish it from sibling tools like backtest_strategy (presumably for stocks) and other crypto data 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?

The description implies usage for crypto strategy backtesting and provides clear context via the mention of crypto and specific indicators. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear that an agent would know to use this for crypto backtesting.

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