get_financials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves financial statements and explains the structure of the return data (rows/columns). It does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, any side effects, or limits on symbol format beyond what the schema already states. This is adequate but not rich in 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 four sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides necessary information (parameter options, output structure, constraints). There is no redundant or extraneous text.

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 tool has moderate complexity (3 params, 1 required, no nested objects) and an output schema exists. The description covers the purpose, all parameter choices, output structure, and the constraint that 'ttm' is limited to income and cashflow. It does not explain the output schema in detail, but that is provided separately. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% (all three parameters have detailed descriptions). The description adds context by reiterating that 'ttm' is for income and cashflow only and that each row is a line item, but these details are largely present in the schema descriptions. The description does not add meaning significantly beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb-resource combination ('Get a financial statement for a Yahoo symbol') and then clearly enumerates the statement types (income, balance, cashflow) and frequencies (annual, quarterly, ttm). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_quote or get_company_info.

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?

The description explains the parameter options and the temporal scope of the output (each row a line item, each column a reporting period), which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g., get_company_info for summary data, get_quote for current price, get_history for historical prices). No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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