trademcp_compare_stocks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the composite data sources (latest quote, headline fundamental ratios, technical signal score) that get assembled into each row. It omits error handling for invalid symbols or partial failures, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line, followed by a concise explanation of what is assembled. The Args/Returns block duplicates the schema slightly, but the overall length is proportionate and no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists and the description correctly states the return shape (markdown table or JSON list, one row per symbol), so return values need no further detail. Given rich annotations and full param coverage, the only gap is behavior on invalid or missing symbols.

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 100% and the Args block essentially restates the schema (including the NSE/company-name allowance and the markdown/json enum). Baseline 3 applies since the schema already carries the meaning.

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?

States a specific verb ("Compare") and resource ("two to five Indian stocks") plus the four dimensions covered: price, valuation, quality, momentum. This clearly separates it from single-symbol tools like get_quote or get_fundamentals, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 "two to five" cardinality constraint implicitly tells the agent not to use this for a single symbol, and the dimension list hints at the comparison use case. However no alternatives are named and there is no explicit when/when-not guidance versus screen_stocks or get_valuation.

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