tradingview_compare_stocks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds value beyond annotations by listing the specific metrics returned and explicitly noting two types of data that are not available (revenue growth rate and analyst price targets), which helps set expectations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence lists all returned fields efficiently, and the second sentence notes missing data. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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, the description does list returned fields but does not explain the structure of the response (e.g., JSON format, data types for each field, or handling of errors for invalid tickers). For a simple tool with one parameter, this is adequate but has gaps in specifying exact output format.

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%, with the schema itself providing a description for the only parameter (tickers as an array of strings with min 2, max 5). The description adds no new information beyond what the schema already provides; it merely restates '2-5 stocks'.

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 returns price, change, market cap, P/E, EPS, revenue, dividend yield, RSI, and analyst recommendation rating for 2-5 stocks. This is a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('comparison data for stocks'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tradingview_quote (single stock) and tradingview_scan (screening).

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 comparing multiple stocks and notes data that is not available (revenue growth rate, analyst price targets), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. No direct guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools for missing data.

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