trademcp_get_financial_statements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: exactly which line items come back from each of the three statements and that results span the requested number of periods. It omits data source, currency, and latency, which keeps it from a 5.

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 purpose sentence, then a compact enumeration of returned fields, then Args and Returns blocks. Every sentence carries information and the structure mirrors how an agent searches for a 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?

For a read-only data-fetch tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description is nearly sufficient. Minor gaps remain around market scope (NSE-only, currency) and whether periods align to fiscal year ends.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the 1-10 range for years and the enum for response_format. The Args block largely restates those descriptions, adding only the NSE-market hint and the 'number of periods' framing; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb + three named resources (income statement, balance sheet, cash flow) with an explicit enumeration of the line items returned, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_valuation and get_fundamentals. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implied by the field enumeration and the Args block (NSE symbol, annual vs quarterly), but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'use get_valuation instead for ratios' guidance. The agent must infer the boundary from the listed fields.

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