get_financials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any traits like data freshness, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The only behavioral hint is the mapping of type codes, but that's about parameter semantics, not behavior.

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 very concise: one sentence with a key-value mapping. Every part is relevant. However, the structure is minimal and could be slightly improved (e.g., listing each type on a new line) but is adequate for quick parsing.

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 two required parameters (slug, type) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain that slug is a company identifier, nor does it describe the output format (e.g., JSON structure, field details). The tool returns financial data but the user cannot anticipate the response shape or any edge cases.

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 adds meaning for the 'type' parameter by mapping enum codes to human-readable names. However, the 'slug' parameter is not explained at all, leaving its purpose and format unclear. Partial value added, but insufficient for full semantic clarity.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get financial statements' and enumerates the types (pl, bs, cf, ratios, quarterly) with brief expansions. However, it does not explicitly clarify that 'slug' refers to a company identifier, though this is implied by the tool name and sibling context. It distinguishes from siblings like get_company_overview or get_shareholding by focusing on financial statements.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., need a company slug first) or comparison with similar tools like get_operational_metrics or get_revenue_mix. The absence of usage hints reduces decision support for the agent.

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