get_financial_statement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that fields are translated to Chinese and units are converted, and that output is arranged for cross-period comparison. It also specifies the maximum of 20 periods for the count parameter. While it does not mention error conditions or read-only status, the disclosed output formatting and data processing behavior exceed the minimum expectation for a read-only financial data tool.

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 the core purpose and then provides a structured Args list. It is slightly verbose but each line is informative and no sentence is wasted. The layout is logical and easy to parse, though it could be tightened slightly without losing meaning.

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 the complexity of the tool (5 parameters, multiple markets, and various statement types), the description covers the key usage context: supported regions, unit conversion, and output layout. The output schema exists, so return structure is not fully described in text, which is acceptable. The description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly for most use cases.

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, and it does thoroughly. Each parameter (symbol, statement, report_type, count, detail) is explained with its purpose and acceptable values. Statement and report_type get explicit enumerations (e.g., indicator/income/balance/cash_flow and all/Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4), which the schema lacks. This fully bridges the gap left by the schema's missing descriptions.

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 that the tool retrieves financial statements and core indicators, supports A/HK/US stocks, and organizes output by indicator × reporting period. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_quote and get_kline by focusing on statement-level data. The purpose is specific and immediately understandable.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of competing tools or conditions that would route the agent to a different sibling. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage based on the need for financial statements.

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