calculate_financial_ratios

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does well by disclosing that ratios are 'computed by hand from the income statement and balance sheet instead of read off .info' and enumerates the six ratios. It does not cover side effects or error cases, but for a pure calculation tool the methodology disclosure adds real value.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence states purpose and scope, one sentence explains method, and one line documents the parameter. Every sentence adds new, non-redundant information with no filler.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides enough context: what is calculated, for which securities, over which period, and via what method. A minor gap is lack of explicit behavior for unsupported tickers, but the examples and scoping largely mitigate this.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the single parameter with concrete examples ('RELIANCE', 'TCS.NS', 'TCS.BO'), clarifying accepted listing formats beyond the bare string type. It does not cover edge cases like case sensitivity, but the examples make the parameter clear.

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 opens with a strong verb-resource pair: 'Calculate valuation, profitability, liquidity, and efficiency ratios for the latest fiscal period of an NSE/BSE-listed Indian equity.' It also names the specific ratios computed, distinguishing it from generic financial data retrieval 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 clearly implies when to use it: for NSE/BSE-listed Indian equities, latest fiscal period, and ratios Yahoo leaves null. It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the scoping information is sufficient for an agent to route to this tool over data-retrieval or other calculation tools.

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