compare_stocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'compare performance' but doesn't specify what 'performance' entails (e.g., returns, volatility, metrics), how results are formatted, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every word contributing to understanding the core functionality, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of comparing stocks and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'performance' means, the format of results, or any behavioral traits. With no structured data to compensate, the description should provide more context to be complete for this type of tool.

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%, with clear descriptions for 'tickers' and 'period' in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the meaning of 'performance' or details on period options. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Compare performance of multiple stocks over a specified period.' It specifies the verb ('compare'), resource ('stocks'), and scope ('multiple' and 'over a specified period'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_historical_data' or 'get_stock_analysis,' which might offer overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools such as 'get_historical_data' and 'get_stock_analysis,' there's no indication of when this comparison tool is preferred or what its specific use cases are. It lacks explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives, leaving usage unclear.

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