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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a vague statement about correlations and influence, with no detail on data sources, timeframe behavior, cost/latency of multi-symbol comparison, or anything an agent couldn't infer from the name.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with the outcome framing second. Slightly padded by redundant phrasing ('cross-asset relationships, correlations') but no wasted length.

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 must convey what a comparison returns; it only gestures at 'correlations and influence' without describing the shape or granularity of results. Adequate to attempt a call, but incomplete for predicting the response.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the timeframe default. The description adds no format hints (e.g., how related_symbols like DXY/US10Y are interpreted) beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (compare) and resource (symbol vs. related markets), and the second sentence clarifies what the comparison yields (cross-asset relationships, correlations, influence). This distinguishes it reasonably from snapshot/context siblings, though it never names them.

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: 'compare primary symbol against related markets' suggests multi-symbol analysis, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_market_context, get_market_snapshot, or get_historical_context, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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