fmp_dcf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only explains the 'levered' parameter's effect (post-debt DCF) but does not mention any potential side effects, permissions, rate limits, or the nature of the response. As a read-only data retrieval tool, it implicitly seems safe, but the description does not explicitly confirm this or discuss any behavioral nuances.

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 extraordinarily concise: two sentences that cover the tool's purpose and the key parameter. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains zero filler. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting with 'Args:' neatly separates parameter explanation.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, an output schema exists), the description is adequately complete for the core functionality. It explains the purpose and the levered parameter, and the output schema presumably covers return values. However, it lacks usage guidance and any behavioral caveats, which might be expected in a more comprehensive description for an agent to make an informed choice. Since the output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain returns, but the missing contextual aspects reduce completeness.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains the 'levered' parameter's meaning (use the post-debt DCF), which adds value beyond the schema's simple boolean title. However, it does not elaborate on 'symbol' beyond the phrase 'for a symbol,' leaving it to the schema's 'Symbol' title, which is clear enough. The description partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions but could be more thorough.

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 performs a discounted cash flow valuation for a given symbol, which is a specific and distinct purpose among the sibling tools (e.g., dividends, earnings, historical prices). It uses a specific verb ('valuation') and resource ('symbol'), making the purpose discernible. However, it doesn't elaborate on the output format or differentiate strongly from alternatives that might also return valuation-like data, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer that it is for DCF calculations. There is no mention of when not to use it or alternative tools for similar financial metrics.

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