financials_metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'get calculated financial metrics,' which is vague and doesn't disclose what metrics are returned, the format, potential delays, or any access requirements. For a read tool, some context is added by the word 'calculated,' but it's minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient but under-specified, which is a trade-off. The structure is sound for the minimal content provided.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what 'calculated financial metrics' includes. It does not enumerate or imply a set, leaving the agent uncertain about the response. The many related siblings make this ambiguity worse, as it's unclear how this differs from financials_snapshot or financials_metrics-like tools.

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% ('Stock ticker'), and the description's 'for a ticker' adds no new meaning. It meets the baseline because the schema already documents the parameter, but it does not enhance understanding.

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 ('Get') with a resource ('calculated financial metrics') and the object ('ticker'). It implies a bundle of derived metrics, distinguishing it from siblings like financials_revenue or financials_eps. However, it doesn't specify which metrics are included, which could cause ambiguity.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many financials_* siblings (e.g., financials_snapshot, financials_eps, financials_pe). The agent is left to infer from the name alone, with no explicit situational cues.

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