get_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists categories of returned metrics but does not describe response format, data granularity, potential limitations, or whether any authentication or rate limits apply. The behavior is largely implied by the tool name and metric list.

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 contains two sentences that redundantly restate the same information. The first sentence lists the metric categories, and the second repeats them with slight rewording. This could be condensed into one tight sentence without losing meaning.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only guidance for the agent. It fails to differentiate this tool from many similar sibling metrics tools, does not indicate response structure, and lacks usage scenarios. This is insufficient for reliable tool selection.

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 both parameters described. The description adds minimal meaning by indicating the symbol parameter is for a 'single asset,' but does not expand on the 'tag' parameter or provide format details beyond the schema. Baseline of 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 description clearly states that the tool returns dividend data, returns, profitability, growth, leverage, and business quality metrics for a single asset symbol. This is a specific verb and resource, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools that also retrieve financial metrics, such as get_statistics_annual_returns or get_financials_valuation_measures.

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?

No when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The only contextual hint is 'Primarily applicable to stocks,' which is a domain restriction rather than a comparison to alternatives. The description does not explain scenarios where this tool should be preferred over siblings.

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