get_account_comparison

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that the operation spans ALL accounts and returns comparative metrics. However, it never states that this is a read-only/non-mutating operation, nor any cost, caching, or result-shape behavior — meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the metric list plus example questions are efficient. The three examples are slightly redundant with one another (all illustrate the same comparison intent), costing a little tightness.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully compensates by naming the exact metrics returned (win rate, PnL, closed trades, profit factor, return %) and the comparison framing. It stops short of describing the return structure (e.g. one row per account) or any preconditions.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description's mention of comparing 'between different accounts' correctly signals there are no filter inputs to supply, which is consistent with the empty 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — a side-by-side performance comparison of accounts — and enumerates the metrics compared (win rate, PnL, closed trades, profit factor, return %). It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_accounts (which lists) and get_overview_stats (single-account), though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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 three example questions clearly establish when to reach for this tool (comparing two named accounts, ranking accounts by a metric, or comparing all accounts at once). There are no explicit exclusions telling the agent when to prefer get_overview_stats or get_strategy_stats instead, so it falls short of a 5.

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