get_financial

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds a key behavioral trait: the tool outputs a large payload (3,500 characters per stock, 78% token usage for 5 stocks), warning about token consumption. This goes beyond mere function and is valuable for agent planning. It does not mention read-only status or permissions, but for a simple read tool, this is acceptable.

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 compact and well-structured: a bolded purpose, a warning with a sibling reference, usage context, and parameter details. Every sentence serves a purpose—no redundancy or fluff. It front-loads the primary function and then provides actionable warnings.

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's simplicity (1 parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It mentions the 19-item scope and gives a token warning. It doesn't detail the output structure, but the output schema exists to cover that. It also doesn't explain how to interpret negative values or exceptions, but for this level of complexity, it is sufficient.

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 only parameter, 'code', has zero schema description coverage. The description compensates by specifying '종목코드 6자리' (6-digit stock code) with an example '005930'. This adds essential format and example details beyond the bare schema, meeting the low-coverage baseline of 3 and exceeding it with concrete guidance.

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 retrieves the full set of financial indicators (19 items, annual/quarterly trends) for a single stock, using the bolded '전체' to emphasize scope. It explicitly contrasts with sibling get_financial_batch for multi-stock comparisons, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: '여러 종목을 비교하려면 `get_financial_batch`를 쓰세요' (use get_financial_batch for multi-stock comparisons) and mentions suitable queries (PER, PBR, 재무제표, etc.). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions with a named alternative.

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