financial_ratio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'get' but not explicit), whether output depends on the chosen period/source, what data availability constraints exist (e.g., ratios require specific source availability), or how the returned ratios vary across sources (VCI vs KBS may compute differently).

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?

A single, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and enumerate examples of returned ratios efficiently. Appropriate length for a straightforward tool.

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?

The tool has an output schema and complete parameter documentation, which lowers the burden. It lists representative ratios and mentions period/source options via schema. However, with no annotations and no guidance on source differences (VCI vs KBS produce different data) or how ratios relate to sibling statement tools, it's adequate but not complete for a multi-source financial tool.

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 100%, so the schema documents all three parameters (symbol, period, source) including defaults and example tickers. The description adds the list of ratio types returned (P/E, P/B, ROE, ROA), which helps clarify what the symbol parameter yields, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema beyond that ratio list.

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 gets financial ratios (P/E, P/B, ROE, ROA) for a company, using specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource. It distinguishes from sibling financial statement tools (balance sheet, income statement, cash flow) by focusing on computed ratios rather than raw statements, but doesn't explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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 implies when to use it (when you need computed valuation/profitability ratios vs raw financial statements from sibling tools), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. For a tool in a large financial family, explicit guidance on when to choose ratios over balance_sheet/income_statement/cash_flow would be valuable and is absent.

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