getFinancialScores

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

With annotations already indicating readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints, the description adds value by specifying the concrete metrics returned (Altman Z-Score, Piotroski Score). It does not disclose limitations like data recency or rate limits, but the presence of annotations reduces the burden, and the added metric context is helpful.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the primary purpose and key metrics. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is well-structured for quick agent comprehension.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and annotations, the description covers the main purpose and key metrics. However, it lacks information on the time period (e.g., annual, TTM) and the exact output structure. For a simple data retrieval tool, it is nearly complete but could be slightly more explicit.

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?

Both parameters (symbol and limit) are already described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about parameter semantics, such as expected symbol format or behavior of the limit parameter, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 assesses financial strength using the Financial Health Scores API, and it explicitly names specific metrics (Altman Z-Score and Piotroski Score). This differentiates it from sibling tools like getFinancialRatiosTTM and getFinancialScoresBulk, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, such as when bulk data is needed (use getFinancialScoresBulk) or when other ratios are required (use getFinancialRatiosTTM). This lack of usage context forces the agent to rely on name alone.

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