compare_indicator_observations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: 'it does not persist either capture,' which reassures the agent about side effects. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, how epsilon affects the comparison, or what happens if the two captures are structurally mismatched. The disclosure is useful but incomplete.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. It opens with the core action and context, then immediately states the return value and a critical side-effect. Every word earns its place.

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?

The schema is complex, with nested objects and three parameters, and there is no output schema to describe the return format. The description does not explain what 'closed-bar captures' means, what 'changed plot values' look like, or the role of epsilon. For an agent deciding whether and how to call this tool, significant gaps remain.

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 for the schema's silence. It loosely explains 'before' and 'after' as 'two closed-bar captures' but gives no detail about the required structure (study_id, symbol, resolution, bars). Most importantly, the 'epsilon' parameter is never mentioned, leaving a key input undocumented. The description fails to convey the meaning or usage of one of the three parameters.

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 specific verb ('Compare'), the exact resource ('two closed-bar captures of the same indicator'), and the situational context ('after a chart reload/restart'). It also differentiates itself by stating what it returns ('changed plot values') and what it does not do ('does not persist either capture'). This distinguishes it from sibling comparison tools like compare_research_evidence and compare_strategy_experiments.

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 phrase 'after a chart reload/restart' provides a clear context for when this tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when comparing live values or arbitrary datasets. The absence of explicit exclusions keeps it from a 5.

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