sec_company_financials

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the tool's safe read-only nature. The description adds that it 'returns standardized financial data' and specifies filing types, but does not disclose potential edge cases, rate limits, or error behaviors. With readOnly covered by annotations, the description provides marginal additional 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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence serves a distinct role (what it does, prerequisite, guidance, examples). It is concise without sacrificing necessary details, though the common concepts list could be formatted more cleanly.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, required input (CIK), prerequisite lookup (sec_company_search), and valid metric values. It does not explicitly state that omitting 'metric' returns a summary, but that is documented in the schema, so overall completeness is strong.

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 schema already describes both parameters with examples, and schema coverage is 100%. The description supplements this by listing common XBRL concepts (e.g., Revenues, NetIncomeLoss, Assets), giving the agent concrete valid values for the 'metric' parameter and adding value beyond the schema's generic description.

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's function: 'Get financial data ... from SEC XBRL filings for a company.' It specifies the source (10-K and 10-Q filings) and lists common data points, making the purpose explicit and distinct from sibling lookup tools like sec_company_search and sec_filing_search.

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 provides clear guidance on prerequisites ('Requires CIK number') and explicitly directs users to 'Use sec_company_search to look up filings first,' naming a specific alternative for a needed preliminary step. It does not explicitly state exclusions (e.g., when to use sec_filing_search instead), but overall usage context is well conveyed.

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