AlphaDesk

peers

Identifies comparable companies from vendor-supplied lists, providing the baseline for comparing metrics.

Instructions

Companies the reader's vendor lists as comparable to this one — the starting point for compare_metrics.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "peers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbol`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the peers come from the "reader's vendor lists," which adds source context, but it never states that the operation is read-only, what the output looks like, or whether limits or sorting apply.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single compact sentence that includes both the core definition and the relationship to compare_metrics. It earns its place but sacrifices clarity with the ambiguous 'Companies' phrasing, so it is not a top-tier example.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description gives the essential purpose and a downstream use case. However, without annotations or an output schema, it omits the expected return shape (e.g., a list of peer symbols) and any input format guidance, leaving the agent partially underinformed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no explicit detail about the symbol parameter, only referring to it indirectly as "this one." The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description defines peers as "Companies the reader's vendor lists as comparable to this one" and points to compare_metrics, which suggests the tool returns comparable companies for a symbol. However, it lacks an explicit action verb and is grammatically awkward ('Companies' reads as either a noun or a verb), so an agent must infer what the tool actually returns.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase "the starting point for compare_metrics" gives a clear, concrete use case: call this tool before compare_metrics. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but for a simple single-purpose tool this context is sufficient to route an agent appropriately.

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