Get forward estimates

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: on-demand background refresh writes a snapshot at most once per day, first read may be empty, and the data has known gaps (no EBITDA estimates, management guidance, or revenue revisions). It also discloses the currency-unit matching condition for forward P/E/PEG and clarifies it does not mutate portfolios or user data, which is consistent with destructiveHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, and each subsequent sentence carries distinct information about caching, coverage limits, or currency handling. It is dense and slightly longer than needed, but there is little wasted text.

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?

With no output schema, the description does well to state what is returned (consensus revenue/EPS estimates, EPS revisions) and what is not available. It doesn't describe row shape or pagination behavior for the limit parameter, which is a minor remaining gap.

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%, so ticker, periodType, and limit are already fully documented, including examples and enum values. The description adds only modest context (fiscal periods and source currency preserved, exact ticker required), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (read cached Yahoo analyst consensus revenue/EPS estimates plus EPS revision percentages) and a precise resource scope (one exact Bullrun ticker). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_financial_history or get_stock_metrics, which cover reported history and metrics rather than forward consensus.

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?

Usage is implied through the caching note ('the first read may be empty') and the single-ticker constraint, which hints at how to call it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for consensus estimates, so routing is left to inference.

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