get_ttm_financials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful provenance (TTM computed from 10-Q/FY filings) and a scope limit (US stocks only), but says nothing about freshness, missing-data behavior for non-US or non-filing companies, or latency.

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?

A single, densely packed sentence with the distinguishing qualifier 'TTM' and the source in the front half. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs reordering.

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 present, return shape needn't be explained, and the read-only annotation covers safety. Still, for a tool sitting in a cluster of five overlapping financials tools, the description omits the selection rule and any note about filing-based lag or coverage gaps, which are exactly the facts an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 0% and the single parameter 'symbol' has no description, so the schema contributes nothing. The description partially compensates by implying the value is a US-listed ticker, but gives no format example or resolution rules (e.g., class shares), so meaning is only loosely filled in.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Get ... TTM financials') and adds qualifying detail about the data source ('SEC 10-Q/FY-derived') and scope ('US stock'), which distinguishes it from a generic financials tool. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like get_sec_financials or get_financials, leaving the agent to infer that 'TTM' is the differentiator.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_financials, get_sec_financials, or get_key_metrics, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must guess which financials tool fits a given question.

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