Stock Comparison

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and openWorld. The description adds that the tool returns a list with specific fields and history, and discloses the two modes and the limitation that comparison_symbols may currently be ignored (auto-selects peers). No contradictions.

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 moderately long but well-structured with clear sections for each mode. It is slightly verbose but every clause adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but effective.

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 output schema exists (not shown but stated), and the description covers inputs, modes, and returned fields (symbol, name, market_value, etc.), it is complete for an AI agent to understand and use the tool 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning by explaining the two modes, the optional comparison_symbols format (comma-separated, max 4), and currency choices. This enhances understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it is a stock valuation comparison tool with two distinct modes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'valuation', 'valuation_history', and 'valuation_rank' by focusing on comparison of multiple symbols.

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 explicitly explains when to use Mode A (single symbol) vs Mode B (with comparison_symbols) and includes a note about pending backend support. It also specifies currency options, providing clear usage guidance.

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