compare_portfolios

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only adds that it operates across 'authenticated brokers' and 'in your session', but does not disclose read-only status, return format, error handling, or behavior when some brokers are unauthenticated. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose without fluff or repetition. Every word adds value.

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 tool has no output schema and the description does not explain what the comparison result looks like (e.g., metrics, format). It also does not describe how to interpret results when multiple brokers are involved or what happens if authentication is missing. For a comparison tool with one optional parameter, this is a notable gap.

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?

The input schema fully describes the single optional parameter 'brokers' with a clear explanation, so the tool description does not need to add parameter details. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, staying at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Compare') and resource ('portfolios across multiple authenticated brokers'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_portfolio (single portfolio) and get_consolidated_portfolio (aggregated but not comparative), as well as compare_technical_indicators (different resource).

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?

Provides clear context: use this tool when you need to compare portfolios across multiple authenticated brokers within your session. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which would be needed for a 5.

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