finance.company-profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it merges 'recent' data but does not define recency (e.g., timeframe). It does not disclose limitations such as rate limits, authentication needs, or behavior on invalid tickers. The tool's aggregation is transparent, but specifics on data freshness and constraints are missing.

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, well-structured sentence with a dash for clarity. It is concise (~20 words), front-loads the core function ('Company 360 by ticker'), and lists components without redundancy. Every part adds value.

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 no output schema and moderate schema coverage, the description adequately explains the tool's function and use cases. It covers the key data sources merged but lacks details on response structure, pagination, or sorting. For a retrieval tool, this is sufficient but could be slightly more 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 67% (ticker and formType described, limit not). The description adds context for formType ('Optional filings filter, e.g. '10-K'') but does not explain limit's effect on the merged output (e.g., number of filings or insider trades). The schema already provides ticker's purpose, so the description adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Company 360 by ticker — merges recent SEC filings + curated XBRL fundamentals (revenue, net income, EPS, assets) + recent insider (Form 4) transactions in one call.' It specifies the verb 'merges' and the resource 'Company 360', listing the specific data components, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like finance.sec-filings and finance.insider-trades.

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 explicit use cases: 'Equity research, due diligence, monitoring.' It implies this tool is for comprehensive data gathering in a single call, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives (e.g., for just filings or just insider trades). However, the listing of merged components suggests the tool is best when multiple data types are needed.

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