list_stock_financials

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

The annotations include 'readOnlyHint: true', indicating this is a safe read operation. The description doesn't contradict this, as 'Get' aligns with read-only behavior. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'fundamental financial data' entails (e.g., historical vs. real-time, data sources). With annotations covering safety, the description adds minimal value, scoring a baseline 3.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Get fundamental financial data for companies.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and has zero wasted words. While it lacks detail, it's appropriately sized for a minimal description, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 complexity (21 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema details provided in context), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's scope, return values, or how to use the many filtering parameters effectively. With annotations only covering read-only status, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, especially with numerous undocumented parameters.

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 21 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning parameter titles (e.g., 'ticker', 'filing_date') are the only documentation. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what parameters like 'cik', 'sic', or 'timeframe' represent, how they interact, or which are required for effective use. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't, resulting in a poor score.

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 states the tool 'Get fundamental financial data for companies', which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('fundamental financial data for companies'). However, it's vague about what 'fundamental financial data' specifically includes (e.g., balance sheets, income statements) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_ticker_details' or 'list_tickers', which might also provide financial or company data. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity and differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage (e.g., for investment analysis, reporting), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_ticker_details' or 'list_tickers'. Without such information, an agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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