get_fundamentals_definitions

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 only states it 'fetches' definitions, which is safe and idempotent, but does not disclose any rate limits, authentication needs, or return format. For a zero-parameter tool, the behavioral expectations are minimal, so a 3 is adequate.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and concise, fitting the purpose without elaboration.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal but covers the essential purpose. However, it lacks any context about the scope of 'available fundamental metrics' or how the definitions are structured, which could leave an agent uncertain about the output's nature.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per rubric, 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed since there are no 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 'Fetches available fundamental metrics and their definitions' clearly states the action (fetches) and the resource (fundamental metrics and definitions). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_fundamentals_statements' or 'get_dividend_yield' which fetch specific data, making it clear this is a reference/definitions tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclude any scenarios. Without this, an agent might misuse it by expecting real-time data instead of definitions.

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