Get Financial Ratios Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only retrieval through the verb 'Get' and shows no destructive intent, but it does not disclose data freshness, availability, access requirements, or handling of missing ratios. The output schema covers return shape, yet broader behavioral context 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the target resource, and representative output fields without filler. It is concise, scannable, and every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 simple single-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient for invocation. However, it lacks usage routing relative to sibling tools and gives little non-obvious behavioral context, leaving moderate completeness gaps.

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 input schema fully documents the single ticker parameter with 100% coverage. The description merely echoes 'for a ticker' and adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('key financial ratios for a ticker') and lists concrete outputs (P/E, EPS, ROE, debt-to-equity). It is reasonably distinct from siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping tools like get_company_overview_tool or compare_stocks_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention preferred conditions, exclusions, or related sibling tools, so an agent has to infer usage solely from the tool name and brief description.

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