analyze_compare

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.05 USDC) and implies a read-only operation (no mention of modification). However, it lacks explicit statement about non-destructive nature or any side effects. Score is adequate but not exceptional.

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 three sentences covering purpose, return value, and use cases/cost. Very concise with no redundant information. Front-loaded with key points.

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 (nested portfolio objects, 9 metrics, cost), the description provides a good summary. It lacks details on parameter structure, but the comprehensive input schema covers that. The output (winner per metric and delta) is stated. Could mention required fields but schema already does.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. It focuses on the output (metrics and delta values) rather than input parameters.

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 performs a side-by-side comparison of two portfolios across 9 specific metrics, matching the tool name 'analyze_compare'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools (correlation, diversification, etc.) by focusing on direct 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?

The description provides concrete use cases: 'A/B testing portfolio strategies' and 'comparing current vs. rebalanced allocation'. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, but the context is clear.

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