get_raw_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return type (DataFrame) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, idempotency, or side effects. The description implies a read operation but is not explicit about safety.

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 concise with a clear top-level statement followed by a structured docstring listing parameters and return type. It avoids unnecessary words, but the docstring format (e.g., 'Args:' and 'Returns:') is not standard for MCP descriptions and may be slightly verbose.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and return type, but lacks context on what constitutes a 'raw report' and how it differs from other report-related tools. Given the large set of sibling tools, more differentiation (e.g., 'use this for unprocessed financial data') would improve completeness.

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 description provides meaningful explanations for each parameter beyond the schema's enum values: 'symbol' as company identifier, 'period' as quarter/year, and 'output_format' with the note that 'toon' is AI-optimized. This adds value since the schema has 0% description coverage.

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 'Get raw report of a company from stock market', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_company_reports' by implying a more granular or unstructured report, but the exact nature of 'raw report' is not fully defined, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_income_statements' or 'get_balance_sheets'. The description does not mention prerequisites, common use cases, or scenarios to avoid, leaving the agent without clear decision-making support.

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