Get Asset Fundamentals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds that some indicators may be null for certain assets, which is helpful but not critical beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that list indicators and then provide crucial usage context. Every word adds value and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, input requirements, and a behavior nuance (null indicators). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool accepts multiple assetUids and returns results for all, which is implied by 'assets' but could be clearer.

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%, but the description adds valuable context that assetUid comes from get_instrument and clarifies that the primary parameter is not instrument UID. This extra guidance justifies a score above baseline.

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 returns fundamental indicators (market cap, P/E, etc.) for assets, and distinguishes the required input (assetUid vs instrument UID). This is specific and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 explicitly mentions that assetUid should be obtained from get_instrument, and notes that non-applicable indicators are null. This provides clear guidance on prerequisites and expected behavior, though it does not cover when to avoid this tool.

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