get_financial_summary

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral transparency. It states the return format (Markdown table) but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or potential side effects. Given the absence of annotations, the disclosure is 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 well-structured with separate sections for summary, Args, Returns, and Examples. Each sentence earns its place; there is no repetition or extraneous information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's two parameters and return format, the description is largely complete. It covers parameter semantics, return type, and provides examples. However, it could further specify the range of financial indicators returned or clarify the expected use case (e.g., historical analysis). The presence of an output schema (not detailed) reduces the need for return value explanation.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining stock_code format (including example '688041.SH') and providing a clear mapping for date_type_code values (001-004 with their meanings). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 retrieves financial summary data for a specified stock, including historical operating revenue and net profit. It uses a specific verb (获取) and resource (业绩概况数据), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_main_financial_data and get_financial_ratios which focus on different financial aspects.

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 includes parameter details and examples, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied through the parameter and return description, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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