fmp_ratios

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior with invalid symbols. It only lists ratio types, failing to communicate important behavioral aspects.

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, terse sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the core idea and earns its place with zero wasted words.

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 has 4 parameters, an output schema (though unknown contents), and no annotations. A complete description would need to explain parameter semantics, usage context, and possibly output structure. This description only lists ratio categories, leaving the agent to guess about the rest, making it insufficient for reliable tool selection and correct 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter details. The description also fails to explain any of the four parameters (symbol, ttm, limit, period). It doesn't clarify what ttm stands for, how limit affects the output, or what period options mean. The description adds no value beyond the bare schema.

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 states 'Financial ratios' and lists specific categories (margins, liquidity, leverage, returns, payout), clearly indicating the tool provides ratio-based financial metrics. This differentiates it from raw financial statements like fmp_income_statement or fmp_balance_sheet, though it lacks a verb like 'get' or 'list' and could be more explicit about being for a specific company.

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 alternative financial data tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or how it differs from fmp_key_metrics or fmp_financial_growth. The description is purely descriptive with no use-case context.

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