compare_metrics

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by noting that metrics are vendor-dependent ('as far as the vendors carry them') and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or output structure, which are not critical but would enhance transparency.

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 the first front-loading the purpose and the second adding the metric list. It is concise and free of filler. While the metric list is long, it is necessary for completeness and is formatted as a compact comma-separated list.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: input limit and output content. It does not specify the response format (e.g., table orientation) or sorting, but the listed metrics give a reasonable expectation. Given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'symbols' can accept up to 10 symbols and enumerates the valuation metrics returned for each. This is essential semantic information that the schema alone completely lacks.

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: comparing valuation metrics for up to 10 symbols side by side. The explicit list of metrics distinguishes it from sibling tools like key_stats, which likely focus on a single symbol. The verb 'compare' and the resource 'metrics' are specific and unambiguous.

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 for multi-symbol valuation comparison but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives. It does not name sibling tools or provide conditions like 'use for broad valuation scans' or 'use key_stats for deeper single-symbol data.' The agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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