fmp_financial_scores

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It only states the data returned, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, potential errors, rate limits, or any side effects. Likely a read-only query, but not explicitly stated.

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?

One concise sentence that directly states what the tool does without any fluff or redundancy. Highly efficient.

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 description lists the two scores returned, but does not mention the output format (e.g., a JSON object with separate fields, historical vs current values), or any additional context like whether the scores are computed from the latest financial statements. Given the absence of an output schema, the description could be more complete.

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 single parameter 'symbol' is mentioned in the description as 'for a symbol', implying it is a ticker, but no further explanation is given about accepted formats (e.g., uppercase vs lowercase, exchange prefix). The schema itself only names it 'symbol', so the description adds minimal semantics.

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?

Clearly states that the tool returns Altman Z-score and Piotroski F-score for a given symbol. The verb is implicit but the resource is specific, and it distinguishes from sibling financial data tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus other financial metrics like fmp_ratios or fmp_dcf. Does not mention scenarios where these scores are useful or when a user should prefer them.

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