fmp_income_statement

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors but only mentions that limit controls the number of periods returned. It does not state default behaviors, ordering, or read-only nature. This is minimal information that leaves safety and side-effect questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with no fluff. Front-loading is good: the resource is stated first. However, it is under-specified, but conciseness itself is well-executed.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse for a tool with three parameters. It doesn't mention the required symbol, the default period of 'annual,' or any behavior about data ordering or period selection. A new agent would have to infer everything from parameter names, which is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for all parameters. It only explains the limit parameter ('control how many periods come back'), but symbol and period are not described at all. Period's enum is visible in the schema, but its semantics (e.g., that it toggles between annual and quarterly data) are implicit. This partial compensation earns a low score.

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 names the resource: 'Income statements.' This unmistakably identifies the tool as returning income statement data, and the sibling tools (balance sheet, cash flow) are easily differentiated. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve,' making it slightly less direct than ideal, though still unambiguous.

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. It doesn't mention contexts, prerequisites, or contrast with siblings such as fmp_balance_sheet or fmp_cash_flow. The only hint is the limit parameter, but no strategic usage advice is given.

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