三大财务报表

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 获取 clearly indicates a read-only retrieval of the three statements, and the output schema can cover return shape, but the description does not disclose whether data is latest-period only, historical, annual/quarterly, or how large the response is.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: it states the action, the target (individual stock), and the exact reports included. Every part earns its place.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. The only notable gap is report period/frequency, which is a behavior rather than a selection detail.

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%: both symbol and market are described in the schema. The description reinforces the 'individual stock' scope and statement type but adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 the verb 获取 and names the exact resource: individual-stock balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow statement. This is specific enough to stand apart from siblings like financial_indicators or peer_comparison, which concern different financial data.

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 for when to use this tool versus financial_indicators, stock_indicators_hk/us, or other market tools. It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions such as when market should be explicitly set to sz or bj.

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