Sec Compare Companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses the comparison scope and time alignment ('同一财年'), and the verb '对比' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention prerequisites, data source limitations, or behavior for invalid tickers, leaving some transparency gaps.

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. Every phrase contributes essential information: multiple companies, US market, same fiscal year, and core indicator comparison.

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 tool's moderate complexity, fully documented parameters, and existing output schema, the description is largely sufficient for invocation. It could mention alternative tools or limitations, but the combination of description and schema covers the essential invocation details.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that companies are compared in the same fiscal year and by pointing to 'core indicators,' which aligns with the metrics default. This gives an agent more insight into how the parameters relate to each other.

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 a specific action: comparing core indicators of multiple US-listed companies within the same fiscal year. The '美股' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like cninfo_compare_companies, and '多家' distinguishes it from singular lookups such as sec_company_facts.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when comparing multiple US listed companies on their core metrics for the same fiscal year. It does not name alternatives or exclusions explicitly, but the context is specific enough that an agent should be able to select it appropriately.

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