get_financials

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output shape ('Each row is a line item; columns are reporting periods') and the freq constraint for ttm. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'get financials' statement.

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 compact and well-structured, using inline code formatting for parameters. It front-loads the main purpose, then efficiently covers constraints and output format. Every sentence adds value, with no filler.

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 3 parameters, all fully documented in the schema. The description adds crucial usage constraints (symbol resolution, freq availability) and return structure. An output schema exists, so return values don't need to be fully described. The description is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters (symbol, statement, freq). The description largely restates this information and adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already includes. Baseline 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 clearly states 'Get a financial statement for a Yahoo symbol' and enumerates the specific statement types (income, balance, cashflow). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_quote or get_estimates, which serve different financial data purposes.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on symbol resolution: symbols must be native Yahoo tickers, and non-tickers should be resolved via the 'search' tool first. It also clarifies that 'ttm' is only valid for income and cash-flow statements, which helps avoid incorrect usage. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other financial tools like get_estimates.

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