get_financial

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions the tool gets financial indicators but omits any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The disclosure is minimal.

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 plus a parameter line. Every element is necessary and front-loaded. The structure is clean and readable.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the input well but does not clarify how it differs from similar siblings like get_metrics_summary or get_market_cap_ranking. It is adequate but leaves gaps in comparative context.

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 description explains the 'code' parameter with a format example ('6 digits, e.g., 005930'), adding meaning beyond the schema's string type. Since schema coverage is 0%, this description compensates effectively, though the parameter is simple.

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 financial indicators like PER, PBR, and market cap for a stock, using a specific verb ('가져옵니다' meaning 'get') and resource ('재무지표'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by listing the specific indicators, making the 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?

The description provides example queries ('PER', 'PBR', etc.) that indicate when to use the tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives among siblings. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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