fmp_earnings

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

With no annotations, the description alone carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns actual vs estimated EPS/revenue and covers history and upcoming dates, which is useful behavioral info. However, it omits any details about rate limits, data freshness, or side effects (though it's likely read-only), so it's adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence with a colon-separated list of contents. It's immediately clear and free of filler, earning full marks for efficiency.

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 params, 1 required, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and data coverage. It doesn't explain edge cases or default behavior, but for a straightforward earnings data tool, this is nearly complete. The only reason it's not a 5 is a slight lack of detail on what exactly 'upcoming dates' means (e.g., next quarter only or a range).

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It doesn't mention 'symbol' or 'limit' at all. The description's mention of 'actual vs estimated EPS and revenue' describes the output data, not parameter semantics. This is insufficient for an agent to understand what 'limit' controls (e.g., number of periods) without additional inference.

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 specifies the resource (earnings data) and key fields (actual vs estimated EPS and revenue) and distinguishes from similar financial tools by mentioning both history and upcoming dates. It doesn't explicitly exclude any sibling behavior, but the specific field list makes it more than vague.

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 implies the tool is for earnings history and upcoming dates but gives no when-to-use guidance or comparison to siblings like fmp_earnings_calendar or fmp_analyst_estimates. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions provided, offering minimal decision support for an agent.

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