compare_brokersCompare two brokers or trading tools side by side on safety controls, paper trading, pricing, and rate limits to choose the right integration.
Side-by-side comparison of two brokers/tools (safety controls, paper trading, pricing, rate limits).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | First tool slug or name | |
| b | Yes | Second tool slug or name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds which attributes get compared, but says nothing about behavior for unknown slugs, whether the comparison is symmetric, or how the result is presented.
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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded ('Side-by-side comparison of two brokers/tools') and the scope in a compact parenthetical. Nothing redundant.
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?
No output schema exists, but the parenthetical list of comparison dimensions effectively previews what the agent gets back, and both required params are documented. Minor gap: no handling notes for invalid or identical inputs.
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% — both a/b are documented as 'First/Second tool slug or name.' The description implies the two arguments are brokers/tools but adds no format, slug, or ambiguity-resolution detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: a side-by-side comparison of exactly two brokers/tools, and enumerates the dimensions compared (safety controls, paper trading, pricing, rate limits). It distinguishes itself implicitly from get_tool (single tool) by specifying two inputs, though it never names the sibling.
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 says what it compares but gives no guidance on when to choose it over get_tool (e.g. 'use get_tool for one tool, compare_brokers for two'). The 'two' arity hints at usage but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.