get_company_financialsYearly financial history for a company by CUI: revenue, profit, employees, total assets and liabilities. Amounts in RON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cui | Yes | ||
| years | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds useful context like amounts in RON and the yearly scope, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, or possible absence of data.
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 concise sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose, data fields, and currency without extra 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?
It covers the core return content (fields and currency), but omits explanation of the 'years' parameter and any edge cases. Given the lack of an output schema, the description is helpful but not fully complete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by CUI' but does not explain what CUI is or how the optional 'years' parameter behaves; 'Yearly financial history' is ambiguous about whether one or multiple years are returned.
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 identifies the tool as returning yearly financial history for a company by CUI, and lists specific data points (revenue, profit, employees, total assets, liabilities) plus currency. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_company_profile or get_company_status.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions, leaving usage decisions to inference from the tool's purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search, company profile, financial history, status flags, and CAEN code lookup. The slight overlap between profile (latest financials) and financials (history) is resolved by the descriptions.
All tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern (get_*, resolve_*, search_*). The verbs are consistent and the nouns clearly indicate the resource, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
Five tools is a well-scoped set for a company directory server. Each tool covers a fundamental aspect (search, profile, financials, status, CAEN lookup) without unnecessary bloat or redundancy.
The tool surface covers the core needs for looking up Romanian company data: search, profiling, financial history, and legal status. The main gap is that contact details are explicitly excluded from the profile, and there is no dedicated tool for historical status changes, but these are minor and workable.