compare_symbols

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 states what the tool computes but does not explicitly disclose that it's a read-only analysis with no side effects, nor does it mention any data requirements or limitations. This gap warrants a mid-range score.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and covers the core functionality without any wasted words. Every phrase adds value.

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 presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It sufficiently covers the purpose and parameters for selection and invocation. It could mention that it uses historical bars (implied by period_bars) or explicitly state read-only behavior, but overall it is complete enough for a tool of moderate complexity.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptive parameter names, examples, and defaults. The description does not add additional meaning about parameters beyond hinting at 'two tickers,' which aligns with symbol1/symbol2. Per the baseline rule, a 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('compares') and clearly identifies the resources ('two tickers') and the aspects compared (relative strength, price correlation, return performance). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_technical_indicators (which typically analyze a single symbol) and get_market_analysis (which is market-wide).

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 implies the appropriate usage context: when you need to compare two tickers. However, it lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, such as noting that single-symbol analyses should use get_technical_indicators or that market-wide context should use get_market_analysis. Still, the context is clear.

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