get_financial_metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that this is a time series tool, which is valuable context beyond annotations. No contradictions are present.

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 very concise: one sentence followed by a strategy tag and example call. Every element is useful and there is no redundant information.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers key aspects: time series nature, included metrics, and example usage. The annotations further ensure completeness for behavior.

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 description repeats parameter names from the schema but adds minimal clarification: 'symbol: Security symbol' and 'count: Recent N periods (default 10)'. This is slightly better than the schema titles alone, but schema description coverage is 0%, and the added value is limited.

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 uses the verb 'Get' with the resource 'financial metrics time series' and lists specific metrics (ROE, ROA, margins, debt ratio). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_financial_statement' or 'get_valuation'.

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 <strategy> tag explicitly states 'Use for fundamental analysis over multiple periods,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use or compare to alternatives like 'get_financial_report_latest'.

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