calculate_financial_ratios

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'returns' specific ratios, but it does not mention data source, time period (e.g., trailing twelve months), any dependencies on financial statement data, or potential caveats. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 and front-loaded, stating the main purpose first, then enumerating output categories, and finally providing an Args section. Every sentence contributes value, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 description lists all output ratios and explains the parameter, and an output schema exists to define the exact return structure. However, it lacks context on data source, time period, or how this integrates with sibling financial statement tools. For a single-parameter tool this is mostly complete but leaves some gaps.

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?

The input schema provides only a 'ticker' property with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining 'ticker: Stock ticker symbol, e.g. 'AAPL'', which clarifies the format and provides an example. This adds meaningful guidance for the sole parameter.

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 tool calculates key financial ratios for a stock, listing specific ratio categories (valuation, profitability, leverage). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_income_statement and get_balance_sheet, which return raw financial statements rather than derived metrics.

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 but not explicitly stated. The description says it returns ratios, so an agent can infer when to use it (when ratios are needed) but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No mention of sibling tools or how this differs beyond the ratio list.

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