RiskModels PIT Quarterly Fundamentals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context: it explains that reported versus imputed cost of debt/wacc use different sources, clarifies the as_of inclusion rule, states that only realized history is returned (no forecasts), notes that filings are picked up end-of-day, and gives a per-call price. However, it does not address key operational traits such as rate limits, authentication scope, or error behavior. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded with usage guidance and then systematically details outputs, caveats, and cost. It is dense and somewhat long, but with 9 parameters and no output schema, nearly every sentence earns its place by explaining what is returned or how the tool behaves. Minor redundancies with schema descriptions (as_of, grid) are the only waste.

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?

Without an output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so comprehensively—listing TTM ratios, leverage, betas, reported and imputed cost components, economic profit, equity-bridge decomposition, SEC line items, and grid behavior. It also covers caveats (realized only, no forecasts, end-of-day filings) and pricing, leaving the agent well equipped to call the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats but does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter documentation: its statements about as_of filtering and grid behavior restate what is already in the schema. It adds no new syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond the schema for any of the 9 parameters.

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 verb and resource: 'point-in-time quarterly fundamentals or CAPM cost of capital for one stock'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'riskmodels_get_stock_snapshot' for risk/hedge numbers. An agent can identify the tool's unique scope without opening the schema.

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 opening sentence specifies the exact condition for use ('when you need point-in-time quarterly fundamentals or CAPM cost of capital'), and the second sentence gives an explicit exclusion with the alternative tool to use instead. This covers when, when-not, and the alternative in a single compact routing statement.

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