compare_strategies

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention any side effects, permissions, or data mutability. The output schema exists but is not referenced. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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 sentence, making it concise, but it is too vague and lacks structure. It could benefit from additional clarifying information without becoming verbose. The sentence earns its place but is minimally informative.

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?

Given the complexity (4 params, output schema, many siblings), the description is insufficiently complete. It does not clarify what comparison entails, how results are returned, or how it differs from overlapping tools like 'get_strategy_comparison'. The output schema exists but is not leveraged.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema—it simply restates the concept of comparing strategies. No extra semantics for parameters like 'strategies' defaults or date formats.

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 states the tool compares multiple strategies on the same symbol, which is a specific action. However, it lacks differentiation from similar siblings like 'get_strategy_comparison' and doesn't specify what aspect (performance, parameters) is compared.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context like when to prefer this over 'get_strategy_comparison' or other strategy tools.

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