compare_markets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the operation as 'compare' but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, rate limits, or what the output contains. The mention of metrics is helpful but limited.

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?

One sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action. No wasted words, though 'etc.' is slightly vague and could be more specific.

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?

Tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description gives a basic understanding but lacks detail about the output structure or exact metrics. It may be sufficient for a simple call, but with no annotations it leaves some 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% with a clear description for market_ids (list of market IDs, 2-10). The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only restating 'multiple markets' and 'key metrics' which are already implied.

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 states a specific verb ('Compare'), resource ('markets'), and the distinguishing aspect 'side-by-side' with key metrics. It implicitly differentiates from single-market tools like get_market_details, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_market_details or search_markets. The description only implies usage for comparing multiple markets, but lacks explicit when/when-not criteria or mention of alternatives.

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