financials_revenue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state data frequency (e.g., quarterly vs annual), the range of historical data, default period counts, or output format. The description is a bare action statement with no additional behavioral context.

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, succinct sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and is appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval tool, containing no unnecessary words.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal and lacks essential context. It does not explain data granularity, default behavior, or typical use cases, which is particularly problematic given the large number of sibling financial tools. An agent would struggle to determine if this tool meets its needs without additional information.

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 both parameters (ticker and periods) are already documented. The description adds no further meaning, such as default values, units, or interpretation of 'periods'. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 historical revenue for a ticker' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the tool retrieves historical revenue data for a given stock. It is unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like financials_net_income or financials_income_statement by naming the revenue metric specifically.

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. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as financials_income_statement or financials_metrics, leaving the agent to infer when this is the appropriate choice.

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