get_inputs_tab_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral details: JSON payload is omitted by default and can be appended with include_json, and it specifies conventions for EPS and LTM EPS sources. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, rate limits, or potential side effects. While the retrieval context implies read-only, the lack of explicit statement and any error behavior leaves some gaps.

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 organized with a clear lead sentence, a bullet list of covered items, and a conventions section. The additional details are purposeful and not redundant. It is slightly long but front-loaded with the primary action and scope. Every sentence contributes to understanding what the tool does and how to use it.

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 an output schema (so return format is covered externally) and no annotations, the description provides enough operational detail: parameter explanations, default behaviors, and conventions. It adequately prepares an agent to call the tool correctly. The only significant omission is explicit usage guidance versus alternatives, but that is covered under usage guidelines and does not impact the call itself.

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: each parameter is explained in the Args section beyond the schema's titles and defaults. For instance, it clarifies price_years as 'years for annual price history', fundamentals_years as 'annual periods for per-share fundamentals', and notes peg_basis supports only 'industry'. This adds significant value beyond 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 it retrieves a structured extraction package for the valuation workbook INPUTS tab. It enumerates the specific data included (company snapshot, EPS, price history, etc.), which makes its purpose concrete and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on narrower data points. This is not a tautology; it names a specific resource and scope.

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 what the tool consolidates, implying it is a one-stop shop for the INPUTS tab. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_stock_fundamentals or get_financial_snapshot, nor does it mention when not to use it. There is no direct comparison to siblings, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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