compare_stocks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds meaningful constraints: NSE-only symbols, a 15-symbol limit, and a defined set of metrics. It does not disclose output structure, input formatting, or operational details such as rate limits, but for a read-only comparison tool this is a moderate gap rather than a severe one.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core concept ('side-by-side'), scope ('up to 15 NSE symbols'), and the most important metric categories. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and constraints. It is missing explicit return-format details and routing guidance versus sibling tools, but it gives enough information to make a reasonable first call.

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 partially does by clarifying that symbols_list refers to NSE symbols and that at most 15 can be supplied. However, it doesn't specify ticker format (e.g., whether to use exchange suffixes like .NS or plain tickers), leaving some ambiguity.

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 identifies the tool as a side-by-side comparison of key metrics for NSE symbols and lists the specific metrics included (valuation, ROE, margins, growth, leverage, dividend yield, 52-week performance, analyst consensus). It is distinguishable from single-symbol siblings like get_key_ratios or get_stock_quote, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 'side-by-side' phrasing and 'up to 15 NSE symbols' scope imply the tool is for multi-symbol comparison, giving useful context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer siblings like screen_stocks or get_key_ratios, nor does it provide exclusion conditions.

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