Financial ratios

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds value by clarifying the time scope (latest period plus full history). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond structured fields.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word is essential, making it highly concise.

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 tool with one parameter, the description adequately covers the purpose and time range. However, it does not specify which ratios are returned (e.g., P/E, D/E), which would improve completeness. Since no output schema exists, the description could be more explicit.

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 sole parameter ticker is fully documented in the input schema with description 'US equity ticker, e.g. AAPL.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 applies due to high schema 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 it provides fundamental ratios for both the latest period and full history, using a specific verb ('ratios') and resource ('stocks'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stocks_financials or stocks_earnings by specifying ratios as the output.

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 implies usage for fundamental analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like stocks_financials or stocks_screener. No exclusions or context are provided.

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