策略回测

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'simple strategy backtesting' without mentioning side effects, data caching, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The tool likely performs a read-only computation, but this is not stated, leaving the agent uncertain about consequences.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose ('simple strategy backtesting') and includes the key supported strategies. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the backtest returns or any prerequisites. It only states the action and strategy types, without indicating outcome format, performance metrics, or execution behavior. For a multi-parameter tool, this is incomplete.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, including the list of strategies. The description's parenthetical strategy list adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool performs simple strategy backtesting based on historical prices and technical indicators, listing supported strategies (SMA/RSI/MACD/BOLL/MA_CROSS/KDJ). This distinguishes it from the sibling backtest_crypto_strategy by focusing on stock-style strategies and not mentioning crypto.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling backtest_crypto_strategy or exclusions like 'use for stocks only'. While the market parameter schema notes 'no crypto', this is not in the description, leaving usage context to inference.

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