financials_roe

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 states the action and does not disclose whether the result is a single value or a time series, what period the ROE covers (e.g., TTM, annual), or any data-source caveats. This is a significant gap for a financial metric tool.

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 redundancy. It is efficient, though it might be too sparse to be maximally useful. Still, it earns high marks for lack of fluff.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify what the return format looks like, whether the date range is optional/required, and how the data is structured. The current description leaves these essential details unstated, making the tool incomplete for effective use without further investigation.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, each with a basic description (e.g., 'Start date (YYYY-MM-DD)'). The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema already documents them adequately.

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 return on equity for a ticker' clearly names the verb, resource, and target. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like financials_eps or financials_pe by the specific metric name, so an agent can easily identify what it does.

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 given on when to use this tool versus other financial metrics, nor any explanation of the optional date parameters or expected output format. An agent would have to infer usage from the schema alone, with no help on when to prefer this over alternatives.

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