get_strategy_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a failure mode (no strategy on chart), a data-format nuance (percent-style fields are fractions), and the chart-bound dependency. It does not cover authentication or stale-report freshness, but the critical operational behaviors are stated.

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?

Three sentences: core purpose and content, fraction formatting caveat, and failure/alternative. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds necessary operational information without fluff or 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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides all needed context: what is read, what metrics are included, the fraction convention, the failure condition, and the fallback tool. An agent can safely invoke this tool based solely on the description.

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 100% for trades_limit; the schema already documents the maximum, minimum, and default. The description's 'most recent trades' phrasing aligns with this parameter but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Read') and resource ('backtest report of the strategy currently on the active TradingView chart'), and enumerates the exact contents (net profit, win rate, profit factor, drawdown, Sharpe/Sortino, most recent trades with entry/exit details). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like run_backtest or get_strategy_trade_ledger.

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 states when this tool is appropriate ('currently on the active TradingView chart') and provides an exclusion/alternative: 'Fails if no strategy is on the chart — use run_backtest to test a saved strategy without leaving it on the chart.' This gives the agent clear decision criteria.

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