get_strategy_comparison

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

No annotations provided; description implies a read-only query (no parameters, no destructive language). It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the obvious, but does not contradict any expectation.

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?

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the main action ('Compare all strategies ranked by expectancy') followed by what it shows. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given no parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does. It could mention if it includes all strategy tags or only active ones, but overall complete for its simplicity.

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 zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the output (metrics and ranking) beyond the empty schema.

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?

Description clearly states it compares all strategies ranked by expectancy, and lists the metrics shown (win/loss counts, total PnL, key metrics). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_strategy_performance (individual strategy) or list_all_strategies (just listing).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like compare_strategies or get_strategy_performance. The description does not specify prerequisites or when it is appropriate to call.

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