mantle_compare_opportunities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states that the tool fetches each opportunity via GET, implying read-only behavior, and returns a unified comparison structure. This gives useful behavioral context beyond what the schema provides, though it does not cover edge cases or output details.

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: first states the core purpose, second explains the mechanism and output. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 is complete for a relatively simple tool: it states the operation, the number of opportunities, the fetch method, and the overall return type. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the mention of a 'unified comparison structure,' though a bit more detail on the comparison fields would make it even better. Given the single parameter and straightforward purpose, a 4 is reasonable.

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 already covers the sole parameter 'ids' with a description ('Array of 2 or 3 opportunity IDs to compare'), achieving 100% coverage. The description merely mirrors this by stating '2 or 3 yield opportunities,' adding no further semantic nuance, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Compare' with a clear resource 'yield opportunities' and specifies the count (2 or 3). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mantle_get_opportunity (single) and mantle_list_opportunities (list) by its comparison focus. The second sentence adds clarity about the underlying fetches and unified output.

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 clearly implies the tool is for side-by-side comparison of multiple opportunities, which provides clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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