Financial statements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is standardized and annual, and lists the included metrics, which is useful. However, it does not describe the return shape (e.g., array vs object), whether valuation multiples are per-period or trailing, or any limitations such as data coverage. It is not misleading but lacks depth.

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?

Single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Standardized annual financials'), and includes useful examples of contents. No wasteful wording or redundant schema repetition.

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 no output schema, the description does a decent job of indicating the return content (revenue, margins, income, cash flows, valuation multiples). However, it omits structural details like whether results are grouped by year, which the periods parameter implies. It is mostly complete for a simple data retrieval tool.

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 ('Ticker symbol' and 'How many fiscal years'). The description adds context by mentioning the financial categories, which implies what the data represents, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. The 'periods' parameter is well-defined in the schema.

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 provides 'Standardized annual financials' with specific content categories (revenue, margins, income, cash flows) plus valuation multiples. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like godel_quote (prices) and godel_historical (price history).

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 gives clear context (annual financials for a ticker) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like godel_ratings or godel_quote. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, leaving the comparison to the agent to infer from sibling names.

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