financials_ebitda

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that it retrieves TTM EBITDA but does not clarify how 'to' and 'from' parameters affect the TTM calculation, the default time period, or the data's currency/units. This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's runtime behavior.

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, concise sentence with no filler words, and the key information (TTM EBITDA) is front-loaded. While it is very brief, there is no wasted text, making it efficient, though slightly under-specified relative to the tool's complexity.

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 tool with no output schema and minimal description, essential context is missing: the return format, whether 'from'/'to' override the TTM period, and any units. Given the existence of many financial siblings, the absence of usage context and output details makes the description incomplete for an agent to use it confidently.

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 each parameter (ticker, to, from) already has a description. The tool description adds no extra semantic value about the parameters, such as how they interact to compute TTM, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents them sufficiently.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('TTM EBITDA for a ticker'), clearly identifying the financial metric and entity. It effectively distinguishes itself from the many financials_* siblings like financials_revenue or financials_net_income by naming the exact metric.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as financials_metrics, which might also include EBITDA, or financials_income_statement. The description only implies its use for TTM EBITDA but does not mention exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer based on the name alone.

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