fmp_analyst_estimates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds the word 'forward' to indicate a future-looking scope and does not mention data source, update frequency, symbol coverage, pagination, or limitations. This leaves most behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 12-word sentence with no filler, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is so sparse that it reads as a label rather than an instruction, and the missing verb is a structural weakness.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, but the description provides almost no parameter or usage context. It omits period/limit behavior, alternatives, and prerequisites, making it insufficient for confident selection and invocation despite the output schema.

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 the description does not explain the required 'symbol' parameter or the 'period' and 'limit' parameters. It names output metrics but says nothing about how inputs affect the result, forcing agents to infer meaning solely from schema names and enum values.

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 identifies the resource (forward analyst estimates) and lists specific metrics (revenue, EPS, EBITDA, net income), but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'returns,' making it a noun phrase rather than a clear action. It partially differentiates from siblings by the forward-estimates focus, but it does not clearly distinguish the tool from alternatives like fmp_price_target or fmp_grades.

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 sibling tools such as fmp_earnings or fmp_price_target. The description implies usage when forward estimates for these metrics are needed, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives.

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