get_balance_sheet

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. It indicates a read-style historical lookup, but does not disclose output format, pagination behavior, data limitations, normalization, or units. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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 filler words. It immediately conveys the action, the resource, and the audience, so every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple three-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: an agent knows what data it provides and what input is required. However, it omits guidance on how 'limit' and 'period' behave, when to use annual versus quarterly versus TTM, and how to pick between this and sibling statement tools.

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 needed to compensate by explaining the parameters. It only repeats 'ticker' as a public company ticker and says 'historical,' leaving 'limit' and 'period' to be inferred from their names, defaults, and enum values. No meaningful parameter-level guidance is added beyond the 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 clearly states the resource ('historical balance sheets') and the target ('public company ticker'), which is specific enough to identify the tool's purpose. It naturally differentiates from sibling income statement and cash flow tools, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would call this when it needs a company's historical balance sheet data. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no clarification of when to prefer another financial statement tool.

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