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 describes the tool as fetching read-only table data, which implies a safe read operation, but doesn't disclose data freshness, pagination, or whether the tables are comprehensive or summarized views. For a non-mutating data fetch tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single efficient sentence that lists the specific financial statement types returned. Zero waste, though the list is somewhat long. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and adds the data source detail without fluff.

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 single-parameter data-fetch tool with no output schema, the description reasonably covers what's returned. However, it doesn't clarify how it differs from get_fundamentals, which could lead to incorrect tool selection, and doesn't note data freshness or coverage limitations. Adequate but with identifiable gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the symbol parameter fully documented ('NSE/BSE trading symbol, e.g. TCS, RELIANCE, MTARTECH'). The description names the data categories returned but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for the single symbol parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 retrieves 'Financial statement tables' (quarterly results, P&L, balance sheet, cash flow, ratios, shareholding) for an Indian stock from Screener.in. It identifies the specific resource (financial statements) and the data source (Screener.in). It doesn't fully distinguish from get_fundamentals, which could overlap significantly, so it's not a 5.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include get_fundamentals, which likely overlaps in purpose, but the description provides no differentiation or exclusion criteria. There's no note about when financial statements are needed vs. fundamentals or peers.

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