get_financial_batch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns a consolidated table, covers a specific metric subset, and avoids the token overhead of repeated calls. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with a one-line summary, then gives clear usage guidance and parameter details. The token-cost measurement sentence is extra but reinforces the sibling-tool selection rule. No redundant information.

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 single-parameter batch read tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what data is returned, when to use it versus alternatives, and the input format/limit. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines codes as a 6-digit stock code list with a maximum of 30 items, which is essential validation the schema lacks. It does not address empty-list or invalid-code behavior, but it is sufficient for the single parameter.

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 returns core financial metrics (PER/PBR/ROE/operating margin/debt ratio/dividend) for multiple stocks in one table. It also explicitly distinguishes this from the per-stock get_financial 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: any multi-stock comparison or valuation request should use this batch tool instead of calling get_financial repeatedly. It also states get_financial should only be used when full single-stock time-series indicators are needed.

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