fmp_enterprise_values

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only lists data contents and does not mention request behavior, default period/limit implications, data availability caveats, ordering, or pagination. 'Over time' hints at a time series but is insufficiently descriptive.

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 short sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the core data attributes. It wastes no words, but its brevity comes at the cost of informative content, so it does not earn a 5.

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?

With no annotations, three parameters, and a large sibling tool set, this description is too sparse. The output schema covers return structure, but usage context, parameter effects, and behavioral expectations remain unexplained, making it inadequate for reliable tool selection in a complex domain.

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 adds nothing about symbol, limit, or period. Although parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description provides no additional semantics or guidance on how they affect the returned data, leaving a significant gap.

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 specific resource (enterprise value, market cap, net debt) and temporal scope ('over time'), which clearly conveys what data the tool returns. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate from sibling metric tools like fmp_key_metrics or fmp_quote.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases. The bare data-list statement leaves tool selection entirely to the agent's inference from the name and siblings.

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