get_financial_ttm

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it sums four most recent quarterly filings for income statement/cash flow metrics, and returns the latest quarter for balance sheet items. It also lists the exact metric names accepted. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does a good job explaining the calculation logic. However, it doesn't mention potential edge cases like missing quarters, fiscal year alignment, or data availability for delisted companies.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a brief explanation of the calculation method, and a formatted list of metrics. It is somewhat long due to the metric list, but every line serves a purpose. The front-loading is good: the core purpose and calculation logic appear before the detailed metric enumeration.

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 is complete for a tool with 2 parameters and an output schema. It covers the input format, the metric options, and the calculation behavior. The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. Minor gaps: no mention of error handling for invalid tickers, no mention of data frequency or timezone, and no explicit statement about what happens if a company has fewer than four quarters of data.

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 does: it explains the 'tickers' parameter format ('Comma-separated ticker symbols, e.g. "AAPL,MSFT,GOOGL"') and provides a comprehensive list of valid 'metric' values with human-readable labels. The default value for 'metric' (Revenues) is not explicitly stated in the description, but the schema provides it. The description adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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's purpose: 'Get Trailing Twelve Months (TTM) value for one or more companies.' It specifies the verb (get), the resource (TTM financial metrics), and the scope (one or more companies). It also distinguishes itself from related tools like get_financial_history and get_financial_snapshot by explaining the TTM calculation method (summing four quarters vs latest quarter for balance sheet).

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 explains when to use this tool: 'Useful for up-to-date analysis without waiting for the next annual filing.' It also provides a clear list of supported metrics and distinguishes between income statement/cash flow metrics (summed) and balance sheet metrics (latest quarter). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for different use cases, such as get_financial_history for historical multi-year data.

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