compare_funds

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context (fetches price history for each code, computes metrics) but does not disclose potential issues like multiple API calls per fund, data freshness, or rate limits that an agent should know.

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 concise: a one-line summary followed by a brief paragraph of detail. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the list of metrics could be slightly more compact.

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 complexity (7 params, 3 required, output schema exists), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what metrics are computed. It mentions fetching price history, which implies potential performance considerations. Sufficient for an agent to understand scope.

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%; all parameters have descriptions. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema (e.g., lists metric choices already described). Baseline 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 tool compares multiple TEFAS funds on specific metrics (return, risk, size), with a list of computed metrics. It differentiates from siblings like get_fund_details (single fund) and analyze_performance (likely broader analysis).

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 implies usage for comparing multiple funds, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like get_historical_returns or analyze_performance. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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