compare_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns all three readings in one call, ranks them by bullishness, and includes measurement times. It does not mention side effects, but as a read-only operation, this is adequate. It lacks details on return format or error handling, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The primary information is front-loaded (what it does and rankings), followed by usage context and a caution against redundancy. Each sentence earns its place.

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 covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage, and key behavioral details. It does not provide a detailed return structure (no output schema given), but it does mention ranking and measurement time. For a parameterless tool, this is reasonably complete; however, a brief note on the exact output shape would make it fully complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the base score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none; the input schema is empty and covers 100% of the (non-existent) parameters. No additional semantic information is required.

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 states a specific verb ('compare'), resource (Bitcoin, Gold, Oil readings), and output ('ranked most bullish first'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_sentiment and get_history. It is not tautological and adds unique functionality.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use the tool ('when asked where the news mood is best or worst, or to pick an asset before going deeper with get_sentiment') and when not to (by suggesting using get_sentiment for deeper analysis). It also warns against the wasteful alternative of three separate calls, providing clear guidance.

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