compare_close_vs_vwap

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

Adds interpretation of close vs VWAP (buying/selling pressure), explains VWAP calculation (Va/Vo, None when Vo=0), and states data availability time (17:15 JST). Annotations provide readOnly/idempotent hints but description adds behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then behavior, then details, then args. Slightly long but each sentence adds unique value. Well-structured and efficient.

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 output schema exists (not shown), description need not detail return. Covers input semantics, behavior, data availability, and plan restrictions. Missing explicit mention of output structure but output schema compensates.

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 0%, so description carries full burden. It explains each parameter: code required, date overrides range, date_from/date_to for range, and specifies accepted formats (YYYYMMDD or YYYY-MM-DD).

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 'compare' and the resource 'stock close vs daily VWAP', and specifies scope 'for one code'. It distinguishes from siblings, which are mostly broader get_* tools.

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?

Explicitly directs to use for VWAP/買い圧力/売り圧力 queries on a specific stock and notes it is 'not a cross-sectional screener'. Does not name an alternative tool but context suffices.

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