get_fundamentals_meta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only implies a read operation ('Fetches'), but omits details like authentication requirements, data scope, or potential latency. The description is minimally informative.

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, concise sentence with no extraneous words. However, it is under-specified and could include more context without becoming verbose, balancing conciseness with informativeness.

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 absence of an output schema and parameters, the description should provide fuller context about what 'fundamental meta data' means and how it relates to sibling tools. It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's purpose and output.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage (none). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but since there are none, the description is the sole source of intent. It is adequate but does not enrich beyond the schema.

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 states 'Fetches fundamental meta data for companies,' which is a verb+resource but vague. It does not specify what 'meta data' includes, leaving ambiguity. It distinguishes from siblings like get_fundamentals_statements or get_fundamentals_definitions only implicitly, lacking specificity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related sibling tools (e.g., get_fundamentals_definitions, get_fundamentals_daily_metrics). There are no usage conditions or alternatives mentioned.

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