Compare Symbols

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the exact set of valid periods and the symbol-count bound, which are behavioral constraints, but it says nothing about auth, rate limits, or handling of invalid periods. The presence of an output schema lowers the need to explain return values.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the scope constraint and metrics are front-loaded rather than buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and both input parameters are covered with meaningful constraints. What remains unstated is error behavior for out-of-range periods or symbol counts, a minor gap for a read-only comparison tool.

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 has to compensate, and it does: it enumerates the accepted period values (1mo through 5y) that the schema leaves as a free string, and it states the 2-10 cardinality constraint on the symbols array. It does not clarify the default of 1y or symbol format (ticker casing/styles).

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?

Specific verb (rank) plus resource (2-10 symbols) plus the metrics returned (return, volatility, drawdown), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It doesn't name the siblings get_quote or get_signals, so the differentiation from those is only implicit, which keeps it below a 5.

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 '2-10 symbols' bound and the period framing imply the multi-symbol comparison use case, which distinguishes it from a single-quote tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives.

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