falcon-comps

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the paid nature — $0.05 USDC via x402 — which is genuinely useful and non-obvious. However it says nothing about wallet/auth prerequisites, whether failed or over-limit requests are still billed, latency, or error behavior, so a caller can't reliably anticipate the transaction.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the resource and its contents, then appends the cost. No filler, nothing buried.

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?

Enumerating the returned metrics usefully stands in for the absent output schema, and the price disclosure covers the main surprise. But for a paid tool with a nested, entirely undocumented `prices` parameter and no payment-flow details, an agent can't call it fully correctly from this description alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. 'Up to 12 tickers' merely restates the minItems/maxItems already in the schema, and the nested `prices` object parameter — presumably a ticker-to-price override map — is never mentioned or explained anywhere.

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?

Names the resource precisely (a trading comps table) and enumerates the metrics returned — market cap, EV, EV/Revenue, EV/EBITDA, P/E, P/FCF, margins, peer medians — plus the 12-ticker ceiling. It's clear what you get, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling get_financials or preview_financials.

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 when-to-use statement and no routing to alternatives despite three siblings (get_financials, preview_financials, suggest_peers) that plausibly overlap. An agent must infer that this is the multi-ticker comparative-valuation path rather than, say, a single-company detail call.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the paid nature ($0.01 USDC via x402), data source (SEC EDGAR), and coverage scope. However, it omits permission/auth mechanics, error behavior, rate limits, and whether the cost is per call or per successful result.

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?

Two tightly written sentences front-load the dataset and scope, then append the cost. Every element adds useful information with no filler.

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?

For a simple two-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations or output schema, it covers the core dataset, source, and cost. It still leaves gaps around payment flow, return structure, parameter defaults, and error behavior that an agent would need for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by explaining that data can cover up to 15 fiscal years plus TTM, which clarifies the years parameter, but it does not explain ticker format, default years behavior, or the effect of omitting years.

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 resource and scope: standardized financial statements from SEC EDGAR, including up to 15 fiscal years, TTM, balance sheet, ratios, and XBRL provenance. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like preview_financials or get_comps, so sibling routing is left implicit.

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?

It gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus preview_financials, get_comps, or suggest_peers. The cost note implies a paid full-data call, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the data is free, sourced from SEC EDGAR, and limited to latest fiscal-year revenue and net income, but it omits rate limits, authentication expectations, error behavior, and exact return shape.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It states cost, scope, metrics, input type, and data source efficiently.

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?

For a simple one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the returned metrics, fiscal-year scope, input identifier types, and source. Minor gaps remain around exact output structure and failure behavior, but the core calling information is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single undocumented parameter. It adds meaningful information by saying the input can be a US ticker or CIK, but it does not specify format, examples, or validation rules for the ticker value.

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 latest fiscal-year revenue and net income for a US ticker or CIK from SEC EDGAR, giving a specific resource and scope. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_financials tool, so sibling differentiation is only implied by 'preview' and 'Free'.

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 words 'Free' and 'preview' imply a lightweight or cost-limited use case, and 'latest fiscal-year' narrows the context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of get_financials, nor any exclusion or prerequisite.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is free, US-only, SIC-based, and ranked by revenue closeness, but it omits details such as empty-result behavior, rate limits, and output constraints.

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 wasted words. It delivers the core purpose, scope, ranking method, and downstream integration efficiently.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup tool, the description covers the main purpose and output type. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, it leaves meaningful gaps around the limit parameter and edge-case behavior.

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 for both parameters. It implies that 'ticker' identifies a US company, but it says nothing about the optional 'limit' parameter or its 1-11 range.

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 a specific resource and scope: 'SIC-based peer tickers for a US company.' It also clarifies the downstream use by saying the result is 'ready to pass to get_comps,' which distinguishes it from get_comps itself.

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 phrase 'ready to pass to get_comps' implies this tool is a precursor to get_comps, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of get_comps or how it relates to get_financials/preview_financials.

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