financials_dcf_rate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation via 'Get' but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication requirements, or response format. The description adds little beyond the basic purpose, leaving the agent uninformed about potential traits like pagination or data sources.

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 front-loads the core purpose and relevant components. Every word contributes value, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 only one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials by naming the output components. However, it omits details about the response structure, such as whether it returns a single value or a breakdown, and any limitations. Given the simple input and direct purpose, it is reasonably complete.

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% for the single parameter 'ticker', which is described as 'Stock ticker'. The description itself adds no extra semantics about the parameter, but since the schema fully documents it, the baseline of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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's function: 'Get discount rate / WACC calculation' and lists specific components (cost of equity, cost of debt, capital structure weights). This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like financials_dcf_value or financials_metrics, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer that it's for discount rate/WACC data. There is no mention of alternative tools, exclusions, or contexts where another financials tool would be preferred.

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