stress_test_strategy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses side effects and safeguards: every temporary Strategy is removed, the chart fingerprint is checked before continuing, and results explicitly exclude ranking, adoption, fabricated fills, and orders.

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 dense sentences front-load the purpose, then describe the execution flow, then cover safety and result content. There is no filler and no repetition of schema details.

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 complex 13-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the execution lifecycle, scenario taxonomy, cleanup behavior, and result summary. It omits exact output structure and some required parameter semantics, but the schema names and constraints fill much of that gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning for scenario kinds, bootstrap, confirm, and rerun overrides, but it does not explain required parameters like protocol_id, expected_symbol, expected_timeframe, evaluation range, minimum_trades, or top-level inputs. Significant value added, but a clear gap remains for several required params.

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 operation: 'Run bounded robustness tests' on 'one exact saved Pine strategy,' with explicit scenario types and result exclusions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_backtest or run_strategy_experiment by emphasizing non-adopting, bounded stress testing.

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?

Gives a clear invocation workflow: dry-run preview first, then confirm=true to execute, with a limit of eight rerun input-override scenarios. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops just short of a full 5.

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