get_financials

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds the external yfinance source plus a structured JSON return envelope. It does not cover data latency, rate limits, or failure modes, but that is a limited gap given annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded and has clear Args/Returns sections, but the market/ticker examples are repeated in the body and again under Args, and yfinance is mentioned twice. It is readable but not maximally economical.

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?

With an output schema and safety annotations already present, the description covers the source, data types, and parameter format. It is still incomplete for tool selection because it does not distinguish this comprehensive yfinance financials tool from nearby financial siblings such as get_sec_financials, get_ttm_financials, or get_key_metrics.

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?

The single parameter has zero schema description coverage, but the description fully compensates with 'Stock ticker' and concrete US/Korean/Japanese ticker examples. For a one-parameter tool, that is enough to invoke it correctly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive financial data from yfinance') and enumerates the statement/metric types, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it replaces (e.g., get_sec_financials, get_ttm_financials), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It states the coverage markets (US, Korea, Japan) and gives ticker examples, which implies when the tool is applicable. However, it never states when not to use it or which sibling to choose for SEC/TTM/key-metrics needs, leaving alternatives to inference.

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