veroq_edgar_financials

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

With no annotations, the description relies on text. It discloses the cost (1 credit) and return content (financial data), but does not mention any limitations, state changes, or auth needs. Adequate but not detailed.

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 clear sections (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE). Every sentence adds value, and the structure aids quick understanding.

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 and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, cost, and an example. It lacks details on date ranges or formatting but is generally complete enough for effective use.

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 100% with a clear description of the 'ticker' parameter. The description provides an example but adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for full 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 identifies the tool as providing XBRL financial data (income statement, balance sheet, cash flow) from SEC EDGAR, differentiating it from siblings like 'edgar_filings' (raw filings) and 'edgar_insider' (insider transactions).

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 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly states the tool is for getting structured financial statements from SEC filings, providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for selection.

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