yahoo_finance_ticker_financials

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'supported trailing' hinting at limitations, but does not elaborate on data format, error behavior, or additional constraints like required symbol. It adds some context beyond a bare statement but remains minimal.

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 that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope. No filler or repetition of schema details; every word contributes.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should explain more about what is returned (e.g., structure, range of years, units). It provides a high-level overview but leaves the agent without details on return shape or edge cases, making it adequate but not complete for a financial data tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by expanding the parameter values into fuller terms (income, balance sheet, cash flow) and by noting 'supported trailing', which indicates a limitation not explicitly in the schema. This helps the agent map parameters meaningfully.

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 Yahoo Finance financial statements, specifying the available statement types (income, balance sheet, cash flow) and periods (annual, quarterly, trailing). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like dividends or earnings.

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 implies its use for financial statements but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as yahoo_finance_ticker_earnings or yahoo_finance_ticker_info. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so it relies on the name and obvious scope.

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