get_financial

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it returns roughly 3,500 characters per stock and can consume 78% of the token budget with just 5 stocks. This goes beyond what annotations provide and helps an agent plan its context window.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, uses a callout for the critical token warning, and ends with a clear parameter definition. Every sentence carries useful information; there is no filler.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete. It covers what is returned, when to use it, when not to use it, its token cost, and the exact input format. No critical information is missing.

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?

Although the input schema gives 0% property description coverage, the description fully documents the single parameter: code is a 6-digit stock code with the example '005930'. This compensates completely for the schema gap.

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 names the resource ('재무지표') and specifies the exact scope: one stock's entire set of financial indicators with 19 items across annual and quarterly trends. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_financial_batch, so an agent can distinguish them without opening schemas.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: questions involving PER, PBR, financial statements, market cap, or undervaluation. It also gives a direct alternative: use get_financial_batch for multi-stock comparisons, with a concrete token-cost warning that explains why.

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