compare_stocks

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the use of Groq (LLaMA 3.3-70B) with NVIDIA NIM fallback, the output format (ranked comparison with winner and reasoning), and the limitation of 2-5 stocks. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each covering a distinct aspect: purpose, output, and technology/example. No redundant or extraneous text; highly efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fully adequate. It explains input constraints, output format, and underlying technology, leaving no critical gaps.

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 100% for the single parameter 'symbols', which is well-described in the schema. The description adds example values (e.g., AAPL, RELIANCE.NS) reinforcing usage, but does not provide substantial additional semantic content beyond the schema.

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 tool performs a side-by-side AI comparison of 2-5 stocks, detailing output (pros, cons, recommendation, ranked winner) and explicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_quote or analyze_earnings.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance (comparing stocks) and includes practical usage examples (US and Indian stocks). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context is well implied.

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