fmp_revenue_segmentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description is minimal and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data source, update frequency, or potential limitations (e.g., only available for certain companies). It doesn't mention what the output contains beyond the segmentation, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior.

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 concise, a single sentence, and front-loaded with the key purpose. It is efficient and to the point, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and only 2 parameters, the description is minimal. It does not explain the return structure, any limitations, or how to interpret the data. For a financial data tool, more context is needed, such as whether the data is quarterly or annual, or if it requires specific permissions. The description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex segmented data.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'product line or by geography' which maps to the 'by' parameter's enum values, but it does not explain the 'symbol' parameter beyond what the schema provides. The description adds some meaning for 'by' but not for 'symbol', and with only 2 parameters, the coverage is partial.

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 'Revenue split by product line or by geography' clearly states the tool's purpose: it provides revenue data segmented by product or geography. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fmp_income_statement or fmp_quote by focusing on segmentation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

The description implies usage for revenue segmentation but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites or context, such as needing a valid symbol or that it's for fundamental analysis. The 'by' parameter default is clear from the schema, but the description doesn't elaborate on use cases.

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