get_financials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the response shape (statement_type, period_end, line_items, source_filing_url), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or how XBRL normalization affects missing/estimated line items.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then Args and Returns sections. Every line carries information and nothing is redundant, though the returns block could be trimmed slightly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, both parameters, and the return structure. It is nearly complete for an agent to invoke correctly; the missing pieces are error behavior and the sibling-routing rule.

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 does: it documents both parameters, gives concrete formats ('AAPL' / '320193'), and states the limit range (1-50) and default (4) beyond what the bare schema shows. Only minor gaps remain, such as what happens on an invalid or ambiguous ticker.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get latest XBRL-normalized financial statements' with the covered statement types (balance sheet, income, cash flow). The word 'latest' implicitly separates it from the sibling get_financials_history, but it never names that sibling or draws the distinction explicitly.

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 only implied through 'latest', which suggests a current-snapshot tool. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the get_financials_history alternative, and no prerequisites for ticker vs CIK resolution.

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