qt_compare_symbols

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only names the operation and the 'normalized chart' output concept. It does not explain how normalization works, what the output format is, symbol limits, or whether this is a read-only analysis, leaving significant behavioral uncertainty.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word earns its place. It is not penalized more here because the missing detail is accounted for in other dimensions.

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 tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, and sits among ten related siblings, yet the description gives no return type, no comparison methodology, and no constraints on symbols or time ranges. An agent cannot reliably decide versus siblings or predict the output.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning only for symbolIds ('multiple symbols') and vaguely implies time via 'performance', but startTime/endTime formats and the interval enum are left entirely to the schema, which itself has no descriptions.

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 ('Compare') and resource ('performance of multiple symbols'), and adds a distinctive detail ('normalized chart') that separates it from sibling tools that fetch quotes/candles or analyze technicals. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose qt_compare_symbols over qt_get_candles, qt_analyze_technicals, or qt_screen_watchlist. The sentence only states the action; it does not give conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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