get_financials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the tool's safe, non-destructive behavior is known. The description adds no further behavioral traits beyond the 'Vietnamese stock' context. It does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the symbol is invalid.

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: one English sentence followed by a Vietnamese translation. Every word is meaningful and front-loaded with the key ratios. No redundant or extraneous content.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and lists example outputs. However, it does not specify the number of years returned, whether data is trailing or fiscal year, or any time range flexibility. With no output schema, additional detail on return structure would improve completeness.

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% for the single parameter 'symbol', which is already described as 'Stock ticker'. The description adds the context that it applies to Vietnamese stocks, providing marginal semantic value. However, it does not elaborate on format or special characters beyond what the schema states.

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 provides annual financial ratios (ROE, ROA, margins, P/E, P/B) specifically for Vietnamese stocks. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and lists example ratios, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_stock_info or get_price_history.

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 implies the tool is used to obtain annual financial ratios for a Vietnamese stock, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as get_stock_info or get_technical_signals. There is no guidance on when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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