get_financial_anomalies

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

No annotations provided; description only mentions the analysis and scanning function. Lacks disclosure of behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or what constitutes an 'anomaly'.

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?

Description is a single sentence, concise and to the point, but lacks structural elements like paragraphs or bullet points that could improve readability.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but it omits information about the output format or what constitutes an anomaly, leaving some gaps for a tool of moderate complexity.

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 description coverage, description adds minimal meaning: clarifies year expects a format like '2025' and corp_name_or_code is a corporate identifier. Does not elaborate on valid values or syntax.

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?

Description clearly states the tool analyzes key financial metrics (Debt ratio, current ratio, operating profit trend) and scans for anomalies/distressed patterns for a given year, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_corporate_details or get_stock_chart.

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 explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. Only implies usage for financial anomaly detection without contextual conditions.

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