trademcp_get_fundamentals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructiveness, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that India-specific ratios come from the external Screener.in source — but says nothing about latency, coverage gaps for non-Indian tickers, or failure modes when metrics are unavailable.

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 with the core purpose, then cleanly sectioned into Args and Returns. The metric enumeration is long but earns its place by letting an agent know whether a needed ratio is present; the Returns block partially duplicates the output schema, which is the only real waste.

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?

With an output schema present and full schema coverage, the definition supplies everything needed to invoke correctly, plus useful scope information about what the payload contains. Missing only guidance on symbol resolution and on behavior for non-Indian or invalid symbols.

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 already documents all three parameters including the Screener.in flag and the enum-constrained response_format. The Args block restates that information without adding format, normalization, or fallback semantics, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a full fundamental picture of an Indian stock') and enumerates the metric families returned, which makes it distinguishable from narrower siblings like get_valuation and get_financial_statements by scope. However, it never names those siblings or states that this is the aggregate view, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the broad fundamentals call versus the narrower valuation/statements tools, but there is no explicit 'use this when…/use X instead when…' guidance and no prerequisites (e.g., symbol lookup via search_symbol) are mentioned.

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