comparar_ativos

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. The tool performs a comparison and likely returns a table/format for multiple assets, but the description doesn't detail what the output contains, what data source is used, or any limitations on comparison granularity or assets that can be mixed.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Compara' and conveys the full purpose. Zero waste.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, since no annotations exist, it would benefit from stating what the returned comparison contains or how to interpret results, and it could compare with sibling single-asset tools to guide selection.

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% — the single parameter 'tickers' is already documented in the schema as a list with min 2 / max 10 constraints. The description says 'múltiplos ativos' which adds marginal context, but the description doesn't add semantics beyond what the schema already specifies for the one parameter.

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 clear action — compares multiple assets side by side — with specific aspects (cotação, variação, proventos). It distinguishes the tool as a multi-asset comparison tool versus siblings like cotacao_ativo or proventos_ativo which handle single assets.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies single vs multi-asset use case by nature of the tool, but doesn't name alternatives (e.g., use cotacao_ativo for a single asset). A distinction from sibling tools that serve similar single-asset purposes is implicit only.

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