get_financials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Beyond implying a read ('Return'), it says nothing about permissions, caching, pagination of statement rows, or latency, and does not clarify the CN-A-share-only constraint beyond a scope label.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and market scope front-loaded. There is no filler, though it is arguably too terse to route an agent among many financial siblings.

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?

An output schema exists and schema coverage is full, so return values and parameters are covered. What is missing is disambiguation from get_financial_statements/get_hk_financials and any behavioral context, which is notable for a tool in such a crowded sibling namespace.

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% – period, statement and ticker_or_name are all documented in the schema with defaults and allowed values. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Return) and resource (structured income/balance/cashflow statements) and scopes it to CN-A-share companies. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_financial_statements, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. With siblings like get_financial_statements, get_hk_financials and get_company, the description never says which market/vehicle this tool covers versus the alternatives, leaving the agent to guess.

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