run_backtest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does without revealing behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, parameter conflict behavior, or output format. This is insufficient for a tool with 16 parameters.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices essential information for brevity. It is not overly verbose, but a bit more structure could improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 the complexity (16 parameters, low schema coverage, no annotations) and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain output expectations, when to use this tool, or parameter dependencies. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged to reduce the burden.

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 only 31%, meaning many parameters lack documentation. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'specified strategy and parameters,' failing to explain what each strategy parameter (e.g., fast_period, oversold) does or how they interact. This leaves the agent underinformed.

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 ('Run a VectorBT backtest') and mentions 'specified strategy and parameters,' which gives a basic understanding of what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'backtest_portfolio' or 'backtest_signal', lacking sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools performing backtesting (e.g., compare_strategies, optimize_strategy, walk_forward_analysis), the agent has no criteria to choose this tool.

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