dcf_estimate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains the model mechanics (uses trailing FCF, projects forward, discounts back) and notes it is 'simplified.' However, it does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., missing FCF data for some tickers), data source limitations, or what the output represents numerically. This is a moderate gap given 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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a two-sentence method overview, and a clear Args list. Every line adds value, and the parameter examples are efficient. No filler or redundant content.

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 covers the model, inputs, and data source. An output schema exists, so return value details are delegated appropriately. However, given the complexity of a DCF model and lack of annotations, it would benefit from noting assumptions (e.g., constant growth) and potential data availability caveats. Still, it is largely complete for a simplified estimation tool.

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 fully. It does: each parameter is explained with concrete examples (e.g., 'growth_rate: Annual FCF growth rate for the projection period (e.g. 0.10 = 10%)'). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, clarifying units, ranges, and formulas for all five parameters.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Estimate intrinsic value using a simplified Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) model.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve financial data or compute ratios. The inclusion of 'simplified' sets expectations about scope, adding further clarity.

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: use this tool when you need a DCF-based intrinsic value estimate, using trailing free cash flow from Yahoo Finance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., 'for more detailed valuation, use X'). The context of the method is clear, but explicit exclusions are missing.

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