fdic_institution_financials

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. It discloses the exact return envelope structure, normalization of financial fields (ASSET/DEP/NETINC in $thousands to USD), the honesty about totalAvailable being exact, error handling (only works if meta.total > 0, otherwise throws), and snapshot build time. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then parameter details, return envelope, and honesty notes. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff. It is concise yet comprehensive for the complexity of the tool.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description does a good job explaining the return shape (cert, financials array with specific fields) and providing an example. It covers pagination, sorting, error handling, and the data source. It is nearly complete, though it could explicitly mention the date format or other potential edge cases.

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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds minor value by restating defaults, specifying the source of cert (fdic_search_institutions), and clarifying the meaning of the default sortOrder (newest quarter first). However, it does not add substantial new semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 returns quarterly financial time-series for one FDIC-insured institution by certificate number. It distinguishes this from sibling FDIC tools like search_institutions, bank_failures, industry_summary, etc., by specifying it is for a single institution and the data source is the FDIC BankFind API.

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 that the 'cert' parameter is required and comes from fdic_search_institutions, and provides pagination and sorting defaults. While it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus siblings, the context of the description (financials for one institution) combined with sibling tool names makes the use case clear.

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