run_backtest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool starts a job, implying an asynchronous operation, but doesn't describe what happens after starting (e.g., job status tracking, completion notification, error handling). It mentions 'freqtrade REST requirements' but doesn't explain authentication needs, rate limits, or potential side effects.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Both sentences provide relevant information without unnecessary elaboration, though the second sentence could be more informative about parameter usage.

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 tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the backtest process, expected outputs, error conditions, or how results can be retrieved (likely via sibling tools like 'fetch_backtest_status'). The mention of 'freqtrade REST requirements' assumes external knowledge.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'strategy and enable_protections' as required fields but doesn't explain what these parameters mean, their formats, or how they affect the backtest. The other 6 parameters aren't mentioned at all, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 action ('Start a REST backtest job') and resource ('backtest job'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_backtest_history' or 'reset_backtest', but the verb 'Start' distinguishes it from fetch/query operations.

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 minimal guidance by mentioning 'Required fields follow freqtrade REST requirements', but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetch_backtest_status' or 'reset_backtest'. No explicit when/when-not instructions or sibling tool comparisons are included.

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