compare_sectors

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. It mentions the data source (Finviz groups page) and that it returns a 'current snapshot', which gives some context about data freshness. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, error conditions, or limitations beyond the snapshot nature. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not rich; it lacks details on pagination or response quirks.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with a clear summary. The parameter documentation is detailed but necessary, and the formatting of view options is readable. It is slightly long due to the column lists, but every line earns its place. The order examples are concise and informative.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with two optional parameters, and the description covers the purpose, parameters, and data source. An output schema exists, so return values are handled. It does not explicitly mention that all 11 sectors are always returned or address potential edge cases, but for a comparison tool this is likely sufficient. Overall, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains both parameters: 'view' lists all three options with the exact column sets included, and 'order' provides concrete examples of valid sort columns. This goes well beyond the schema, which only declares type and default, making it easy for an agent to select appropriate values.

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's function: comparing all market sectors with aggregate metrics from Finviz. It specifies that it returns sector-level aggregates for all 11 sectors in a single view, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_industries or compare_stocks. The verb 'compare' and resource 'sectors' are explicit.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_industries or compare_stocks. Usage is implied from the tool's name and purpose, but there is no direct guidance on when to choose this over a sibling. It does not mention any exclusions or alternative conditions, so it relies on the agent inferring the appropriate context.

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