ratios

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states content ('financial ratios') and provides no information about input requirements, output format, error behavior, or side effects. This is a complete lack of transparency.

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 short but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It is a fragment without a verb, and while it has no wasted words, it fails to earn its place because it conveys minimal useful information.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description still fails to explain what financial ratios are included, how they are returned, or how to interpret them. It is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 fully documents the only parameter 'symbol' with description 'IDX ticker', giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Financial ratios for a company.' essentially restates the tool name 'ratios' with the qualifier 'for a company' but lacks any verb or explicit action. It does not clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'financials' or 'keystats', making it tautological rather than a genuine purpose statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or sibling tools, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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