financials_dcf_value

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 only lists return values and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, data source, error handling, or whether the recommendation is derived from a specific model. The mention of 'buy/sell recommendation' gives a hint of the analysis, but nothing about limitations or side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and lists key outputs. It is concise without unnecessary words, though it could add a bit more context without violating brevity.

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 no output schema, the description must convey what the agent will receive. It lists the main outputs, which is helpful, but lacks details like currency, units, or how the recommendation is calculated. Given the many sibling financial tools, it could also clarify how this differs from financials_enterprise_value or financials_metrics, but it is minimally adequate.

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% (ticker is described as 'Stock ticker'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. No extra syntax, format, or constraints are mentioned.

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 action ('Get DCF valuation') and specifies the exact outputs (enterprise value, fair price, margin of safety, buy/sell recommendation). This sets it apart from sibling financial tools like financials_enterprise_value or financials_metrics, which are broader or focus on single metrics.

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 does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or mention that it is for equity valuation rather than other asset classes. An agent has no explicit basis for selecting this over financials_enterprise_value or financials_snapshot.

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