analysis.compare

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It lists output metrics (price, spread, etc.) but does not disclose if the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or triggers side effects. Since comparison is typically read-only, a neutral score is warranted.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and scope. Every sentence adds value: first states what it does, second lists outputs and use case. No filler.

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 no output schema, description adequately summarizes the return fields (price, spread, depth, volume, quality score). It misses details like format or sorting but covers essential output for a comparison 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 already describes the single parameter (condition_ids: array of strings, 2-5) with 100% coverage. Description reinforces the count but adds no additional semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Compare') and resource ('Polymarket markets') with a specific scope (2-5, side by side). It distinguishes from siblings like analysis.quality (single market) or markets.price (single price) by emphasizing multi-market comparison.

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?

Description suggests usefulness for choosing among similar options, implying when to use (comparing multiple markets). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools for single-market analysis.

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