compare_priced_inSide-by-side of what two US stock prices are each betting on: implied growth and duration (plus any held margin input) from a reverse-DCF inversion of each price. No Boothcheck house fair value or rating — a comparison of the assumptions embedded in the two prices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tickerA | Yes | First US ticker, e.g. AMD | |
| tickerB | Yes | Second US ticker, e.g. NVDA |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly/destructive hints. The description adds transparency about the output being derived from reverse-DCF and that it is a comparison, not a recommendation. It also clarifies the scope to US stocks, which is useful beyond the schema.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds a clarifying exclusion. Every word earns its place; no filler 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description gives sufficient context about what the output represents (implied growth, duration, margin input). It could mention potential limitations or edge cases, but for this scope it is complete enough.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both tickerA and tickerB, including examples. The description's mention of 'US stock prices' reinforces the US ticker requirement but adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.
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 tool performs a side-by-side comparison of what two US stock prices imply about growth and duration via reverse-DCF. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it provides no house fair value or rating, making its purpose unique.
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 context on when to use the tool: when comparing assumptions embedded in two prices, and it explicitly excludes house fair value or rating. It does not name alternative tools, but the 'No Boothcheck house fair value or rating' line implicitly directs users away for valuation opinions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.