multiplos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains the crucial behavioral choice: price is taken from the first trading session after the actual balance-sheet publication date to avoid look-ahead. It also discloses API-key requirements and the WEGE3 free-tasting exception. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and outputs, followed by the single most important caveat (point-in-time pricing), then parameters. Every sentence adds value; the methodological note is justified because it directly affects how the returned data should be interpreted.

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 there is no output schema, the description gives a clear high-level list of returned metrics and the core pricing convention. It is slightly lacking an exact response structure or error/availability caveats, but nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool with correct parameters is missing.

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, and it fully does. It explains ticker format (uppercase, class digit), gives examples, points to listar_empresas, and details chave_api behavior including the environment-variable fallback and the WEGE3 exception.

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 uses a specific verb ('Devolve') and identifies the resource: point-in-time valuation multiples for a B3 company. It names concrete outputs (P/L, P/VP, EV/EBITDA per fiscal year, plus P/L TTM per quarter), which clearly separates it from siblings like dividendos or fatos_contabeis.

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 explicitly frames the tool for backtesting: 'permite usar a série em backtest sem contaminar o passado.' It does not state explicit exclusions or name a specific alternative tool, but the use case and point-in-time methodology are clear enough for an agent to choose it over raw financial-data siblings.

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