get_financials

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that each value is tagged with its XBRL tag and filing accession number, which is real provenance information beyond the schema. However, it omits critical traits: read-only safety, whether data must be pre-ingested (index_company/ingest_status siblings hint at a prerequisite), error behavior for unindexed tickers, and how missing metrics are handled.

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?

Purpose and data source are front-loaded in the first clause, and the metric enumeration, while long, is genuinely informative rather than filler. The trailing sentence about XBRL tags earns its place. Slightly heavy on the parenthetical list.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should do more. It partially describes return content (values plus XBRL tag and accession number) but omits invocation prerequisites and parameter semantics, leaving the agent to guess at indexing requirements and argument formats.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively documents the metrics parameter by listing valid metric names (revenue, net_income, free_cash_flow, etc.) and hints at the years parameter via 'fiscal-year', but leaves ticker unexplained and gives no format for years or how the metrics list interacts with the defaults.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (fiscal-year financials), names the data source (the company's XBRL filings), and enumerates the exact metrics returned. An agent can readily distinguish this from siblings like compare_companies or ask_filing.

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 guidance is given. The description never says when this tool should be chosen over ask_filing, search_company, or compare_companies, nor any prerequisites (e.g. whether the company must be indexed first via index_company). Usage is only implied by the subject matter.

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