get_financial_statements

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

With no annotations provided, the description attempts to disclose behavioral traits by explaining the output format ('Values are keyed by line item, with periods as columns') and data depth ('Data goes back several years/quarters'). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention error handling or rate limits, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences and a parenthetical list of parameter explanations. No extraneous words, and the core purpose is stated first. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, output structure, and data recency. However, it lacks details on error behavior, output data types, and potential limitations, making it only moderately complete for a tool of moderate complexity.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by explaining `statement` (selects one statement or 'all') and `freq` (toggles annual vs quarterly), which are not obvious from the schema alone. `symbol` is self-explanatory. This significantly aids parameter understanding.

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 the tool retrieves financial statements including income statement, balance sheet, and cash flow. It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'financial statements', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_historical_prices' by focusing on a distinct financial data type.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_earnings' or 'get_fund_data'. There is no explicit 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' advice, nor any mention of prerequisites or alternatives.

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