financial_statements

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose real traits: values are in US dollars, output is one row per period, and the free tier silently truncates results to periods filed in the last 12 months. It does not state read-only nature, error behavior for unknown tickers, or how many periods are returned on paid tiers.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource and then the parameter meanings, followed by the units and tier constraint. Every clause carries information, though the semicolon-chained structure is slightly heavy to parse.

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?

For a 3-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers parameter value sets, currency, row granularity, and a tier-based data limit. Missing only ticker format conventions and paid-tier history depth, which are minor for correct invocation.

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% and no enums are declared, so the description must compensate—and it does: it enumerates the accepted 'statement' values (income, balance, cashflow) with the fields each contains, and the 'freq' values (quarterly, annual). Only 'ticker' format is left implicit, though it is self-evident.

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 resource (standardised financial statements from SEC filings) with a clear scope qualifier (US company) and enumerates the statement types it returns. It does not distinguish itself from the overlapping sibling 'fundamentals', so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the two to pick.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource (fetch a company's income/balance/cashflow statements) and the free-tier note hints at a data-availability constraint, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternative, and no mention of prerequisites such as a valid ticker or subscription tier.

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