Compare Exchanges

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It communicates that the tool compares prices across two exchanges and explains why that matters, but it does not disclose edge cases like companies listed on only one exchange, data freshness, or how failures are handled.

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 core instruction is front-loaded in the first sentence. The two following sentences add useful context about dual listing and price divergence without redundancy, making the description appropriately sized and well structured.

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?

The description provides helpful context about the two Bangladeshi exchanges, but it leaves the single required parameter ambiguous and does not address companies listed on only one exchange. Since there is an output schema, return-value documentation is not the issue; the missing input semantics are.

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 schema only defines a required 'code' string with 0% description coverage. The description's phrase 'same share' implies that code identifies a company/share, but it never specifies whether this is a DSE code, CSE code, or normalized ticker, nor what format the agent should pass.

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 action: price the same share on both Dhaka and Chittagong exchanges. It is specific about the resource and scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_stock or market_summary.

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 context that most Bangladeshi companies are listed on both exchanges and that prices can differ implies when this tool is useful. However, it lacks explicit guidance about when not to use it or when to prefer a sibling tool such as get_stock for a single-exchange quote.

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