get_financial_metrics

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

没有注解，描述承担全部行为披露责任。描述只说了'获取指标'，未说明数据来源、TTM如何计算、输出格式、权限要求或可能的限制。对无注解的工具来说，行为透明明显不足。

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?

单句描述且无冗余，结构性良好。但过于简短，没有充分利用篇幅提供有价值的区分性和使用指导信息，接近欠规格而非真正的简洁。

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?

工具只有两个参数且其中一个是枚举，复杂度较低，但无注解、无输出schema内容展示，描述未提供足够的上下文来让代理正确调用。缺少返回值说明、期间语义、适用场景等关键信息。

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描述覆盖率为0%，描述完全没有提到参数。虽然枚举值annual/quarterly/ttm和默认值ttm提供了部分自解释信息，但描述没有解释period如何影响输出，也没有补充ticker格式或计算口径，未能补偿schema的空白。

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?

描述使用了具体动词'Get'并明确了资源类型（盈利、回报、利润率、杠杆指标），核心目的清楚。但它没有与同级工具（如get_income_statement、get_balance_sheet）做任何区分，容易让代理困惑于应该用哪个获取原始报表数据而非派生指标。

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?

描述完全没有提供何时使用该工具、何时使用更新或替代方案的建议。没有提及该工具适合与报表工具搭配使用，也没有说明ticker、period等参数的选择场景。

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