compare_funds

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 states the action (compare funds) but doesn't describe what the comparison entails (e.g., metrics compared, output format, whether it's read-only or has side effects). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence in Turkish that directly states the purpose and scope ('Fonları karşılaştırır (2-5 fon)'). It is front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action and resource limits.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns comparison data. It doesn't explain what the comparison outputs (e.g., performance metrics, risk analysis) or any behavioral traits. For a tool with no structured context, more detail is needed to fully understand its use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'codes' parameter clearly documented as 'Karşılaştırılacak fon kodları' (fund codes to compare). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'karşılaştırır' (compares) and the resource 'fonları' (funds), specifying the scope '2-5 fon' (2-5 funds). It distinguishes from siblings like analyze_fund or list_funds by focusing on comparison rather than analysis or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., top_performing_funds might involve 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for comparison, or when to choose this over siblings like analyze_fund or top_performing_funds. The user must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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