get_valuation_detail

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions trends, percentiles, and market comparison but does not explain response structure, error handling, or side effects. The parameter value lists are helpful but insufficient for full transparency.

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 concise, with two lines: a summary line and parameter details. The inclusion of Chinese translations may aid Chinese-speaking users but adds slight noise for others. Overall, it is appropriately sized.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should elaborate on return values. It only describes input parameters and their codes, leaving the agent uninformed about the structure or content of the output. Essential details are missing.

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 adds meaning for valuation_type and interval_type by listing their numeric codes. However, the required parameter 'code' is not explained beyond its name in the schema, leaving its expected format or domain unspecified.

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 'Valuation detail (PE/PB/PS trend, percentile, vs market)' indicating the tool provides various valuation metrics. It lists specific valuation types and interval types with numeric codes, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_snapshot get_financial_statements, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_snapshot or get_financial_statements. The description only gives parameter value mappings without contextual usage recommendations.

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