financials

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the output is structured tables and that the large HTML report is stripped, which is a behavioral trait. It also explains that the numeric parameters are UI toggle selectors. However, it does not address whether the operation is read-only, potential side effects, rate limits, or error behavior, leaving gaps.

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 extremely concise, two sentences, with the key point upfront. Every word serves a purpose: naming the resource, clarifying output format, and explaining the selector parameters. No fluff or redundancy.

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 there is no output schema, no annotations, and only one of four parameters documented, the description is insufficient for a tool with this complexity. It does not explain how to specify different financial statements (e.g., income statement vs. balance sheet), what the response structure looks like, or how to handle errors. The description offers only surface-level guidance.

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 only 25% (only symbol is described). The description adds value by explaining that data_type/report_type/statement_type are integer selectors matching UI toggles, but it fails to specify what each selector controls, possible values, or defaults. This leaves significant ambiguity for the three undocumented 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 identifies the tool's function as returning financial statements in structured table form, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ratios or keystats. It also notes that the large HTML report is stripped, clarifying the output format. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', so it's slightly less direct than a full 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?

The description implies the tool is used when financial statement data is needed, and it hints at selectors matching UI toggles. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is mostly inferred rather than stated.

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