get_multi_financial_index

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

No annotations are provided, and the description focuses solely on parameter format without disclosing behavioral traits such as data source, freshness, rate limits, or potential costs. The only additional context is the maximum 100 companies hint, which is tied to a parameter.

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 concise: one sentence stating the core function, followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and each parameter explanation is efficient with examples. No unnecessary information.

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 tool has 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers inputs. However, it could be improved by briefly mentioning expected output format or any limitations like rate limiting, but it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed explanations, examples, and allowed values for each parameter. Every parameter is thoroughly documented beyond the schema's basic type and title.

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 retrieves key financial indicators for multiple companies, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_single_financial_index. The purpose is specific and well-articulated.

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 implies usage for querying multiple companies, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_single_financial_index or any exclusion criteria. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided.

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