fmp_financial_growth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds minimal context beyond purpose, mentioning 'across the three statements' but not explaining how the data is structured, whether it's read-only, any rate limits, or potential pitfalls. This is insufficient for a tool operating without structured safety hints.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff or repetition. It efficiently communicates the core purpose, making it appropriately sized for a straightforward data-retrieval tool.

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 is simple with three parameters and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks any behavioral notes, usage scenarios, or caveats that would aid selection among many closely related financial data tools. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps in context.

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 compensate by explaining the parameters. It hints at the 'period' parameter through 'period-over-period' but omits details about 'limit' and how 'period' values (annual/quarter) affect the output. The schema provides defaults and enums but lacks semantic meaning, leaving the agent to guess at parameter intent.

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 identifies the tool's function as providing period-over-period growth rates across the three financial statements. Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', the noun phrase conveys the output and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on raw statements, ratios, or other metrics.

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 alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of suitable scenarios, exclusions, or differences from related tools like fmp_income_statement or fmp_ratios. This leaves the agent without explicit selection criteria.

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