get_fundamentals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It identifies the data source (Screener.in) and the return shape (ratios + pros/cons + about), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose freshness/delay of data, whether coverage is limited to certain stocks, or failure behavior for invalid symbols. For a clearly read-only informational tool these gaps are moderate.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose (key ratios scorecard) and lists deliverable content without waste. It conveys source and scope compactly. It could arguably be slightly more structured but is not verbose or redundant.

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, no-output-schema read-only tool, the description covers the core deliverable list adequately. However, it doesn't mention the return format, value discipline (e.g., updated annually vs real-time), or any caveats about coverage breadth on Screener.in. Given the simplicity, this is minimally complete but not richly so.

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% and the symbol parameter is well documented in the schema with examples (TCS, RELIANCE, MTARTECH). The description adds context by indicating the symbol must be an Indian NSE/BSE stock, slightly enriching the schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb+resource combination: it returns a 'key ratios scorecard' for an Indian stock from Screener.in, listing specific metrics (P/E, P/B, ROE, ROCE, market cap, dividend yield). It also adds the pros/cons and about sections, distinguishing it from siblings like get_financials (financial statements) and get_peers (comparison).

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 identifies the tool as a ratios scorecard distinct from financial statements and peers, which implies appropriate usage for snapshot ratio analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly say when-not-to-use, state alternatives, or note prerequisites like whether the symbol must be an Indian/NSE/BSE stock beyond the implicit mention.

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