dcf_valuation

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions handling different currencies, but fails to specify default behavior, computational assumptions, or that results depend on financial statements. No mention of mutation, idempotency, or side effects.

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 at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and output. It efficiently lists optional parameters, though could benefit from clearer separation between outputs and overrides.

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 the complexity of a DCF valuation and the lack of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the format of outputs, the data source (e.g., financial statements), or limitations. The tools' behavior under missing data is unaddressed.

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%, yet the description adds meaning by listing optional overrides (discount_rate, terminal_growth, years, growth_rate) with example values. However, it omits explanations for 'market' and 'ticker', and does not define the parameters' roles or constraints.

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 the tool performs a Two-stage DCF calculation and outputs intrinsic value per share, margin of safety, and expected return. It is distinct from sibling tools like analyze_company or get_financials, which are broader in scope.

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?

Usage is implied through the description (e.g., 'Two-stage DCF'), but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_key_ratios or risk_assessment. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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