get_financial_soundness

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: returned values include source and base date, unavailable indicators like CET1/LCR/NSFR are not invented but mapped to required_reports, and cross-regulatory-regime aggregation is deliberately avoided. This gives the agent a precise mental model of the tool's limits and output guarantees.

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 well-structured: a clear one-line summary, a contextual framing sentence, three scannable bullets, and a compact Args section. Every sentence adds useful information, and the most important scoping constraints are front-loaded.

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 a single well-documented parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all invocation-relevant aspects: when to use it, what data it returns, what it refuses to fabricate, and how to format the symbol. The behavioral and scoping notes make it self-sufficient for correct selection and use.

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 schema only defines 'symbol' with 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It fully compensates by defining the accepted formats: Korean 6-digit stock codes (e.g., '105560') or US tickers (e.g., 'JPM'), with concrete examples for both.

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 identifies a specific resource (financial-firm regulatory capital and asset soundness) and a clear purpose: answering queries like 'KB금융 자본비율', 'JPM CET1', and '충당금 얼마나 쌓았나'. It distinguishes this tool from the manufacturing-style CFO runway path, which makes its scope easy to separate from more general financial-data siblings.

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 tells the agent when to use the tool: for financial companies where the manufacturing-type CFO runway does not apply, and for regulatory capital/asset soundness questions. It also states when not to merge or compare across regulatory regimes, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives.

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