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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some behavioral value by disclosing the frozen-price and old-scorecard flags it surfaces, but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or missing-data behavior.

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?

Essentially one dense sentence, front-loaded with the comparison scope before the field list, with no filler. The long middle enumeration of fields makes it heavier than necessary but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden; it lists the compared fields but does not explain output structure, the fields filter parameter, or the note that tokens accepts 1 item in schema while text says 2-6.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does for 'tokens' — 'slugs or unambiguous symbols' plus the 2-6 range clarifies input format beyond the bare string array — but the 'fields' parameter is never mentioned, so its 27-value enum and 18-item cap are undocumented.

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 concrete verb and resource — comparing 2-6 tokens 'side by side' — and enumerates the dimensions compared (price, valuation, revenue change, holders revenue, net-flow yield, P/S, unlocks, health, verdict, lens, flags). An agent can tell it produces a multi-token comparison, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with single-token siblings like tc_get_token or tc_screen.

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?

Usage is only implied via 'side by side' and the 2-6 token count; there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over tc_get_token, tc_screen, or tc_brief, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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