finnhub_stock_fundamentals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful cost-related behavior for get_basic_financials (include_series 'saves ~100K+ tokens' and series_limit controls periods), but it does not disclose response shapes, required parameters per operation, or any other side effects/limitations for the remaining five operations.

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 structured with a bolded summary, a bulleted operation list, and a focused parameter note. Every line adds information, and the most important cost-saving behavior is called out without padding.

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 multi-operation tool with 8 parameters and no per-operation schemas, the description provides a good overview but omits operation-specific requirements (e.g., which parameters apply to get_dividends vs. get_reported_financials) and date/frequency semantics. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the proxy understanding of required inputs is still incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description's parameter notes are valuable: it enumerates valid values for the required `operation` field and explains `include_series` and `series_limit`, including their token/period behavior. However, common parameters like symbol, from_date/to_date, freq, and project are left undocumented, relying on conventional financial API knowledge.

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 opens with a clear domain statement ('Financial statements, earnings, dividends, and splits') and enumerates six specific operations with action verbs (get...), making it easy to identify the tool as the fundamentals resource among siblings. It lacks an explicit contrast with sibling tools like finnhub_stock_market_data or finnhub_stock_estimates, but the operation list itself is sufficiently distinct.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain and operation names, but the description never explicitly states when to choose this tool over siblings or which operation to use for a given need. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, so the agent must infer from the operation labels.

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