compare_technical_indicators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any authentication prerequisites, what happens if no brokers are available, or error conditions. The description is minimal and leaves the agent guessing about important behavioral aspects, similar to the 'update_drive' example.

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 with no filler. It directly conveys the core action, resource, and scope, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to provide more context. It does not explain what the tool returns, how multiple brokers are selected, or any limitations (e.g., requires at least two authenticated brokers). Given the tool's moderate complexity (multi-broker comparison), this description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand behavior and expected results.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a hint about the 'brokers' parameter via 'across multiple brokers,' but it does not elaborate on period, indicator specifics, or the need for at least two brokers. Since the schema already describes each parameter, the description provides marginal added value.

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's function: 'Compare same technical indicator across multiple brokers in your session.' It uses a specific verb ('compare'), names the resource ('technical indicator'), and specifies the scope ('across multiple brokers'), which also distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_rsi or get_macd that operate on a single broker.

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 when needing to compare an indicator across brokers, and the phrase 'in your session' gives context that brokers must be in the session. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use this instead of get_rsi for multi-broker comparison'). Still, the context is clear enough to infer appropriate use.

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