financials_eps

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It implies a read operation via 'Get' but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it disclose response format, edge cases (e.g., invalid ticker), or handling of the from/to date parameters. Minimal behavioral transparency.

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?

A single sentence containing only the essential action and resource. No filler or redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded. This is appropriately concise for a straightforward getter 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?

The description omits any explanation of how the from/to parameters affect the TTM calculation, which is crucial for accurate usage. It also lacks return value expectations since there is no output schema. For a tool with optional parameters, this is a notable gap in completeness.

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 parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond saying 'for a ticker', which maps to the required ticker parameter but does not clarify the optional from/to parameters. Baseline 3 applies due to full schema coverage.

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 'Get TTM earnings per share for a ticker' uses a specific verb, resource, and target. It clearly identifies the output (TTM EPS) and the input requirement (ticker), making it distinct from sibling financials tools that focus on other metrics like revenue or net income.

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 or earnings_history. The description does not mention conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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