getFinancialStatementSymbols

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds minor context about the list being 'comprehensive' and covering major global exchanges, but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

While the tool has no parameters and annotations cover safety, the description is slightly misleading by suggesting the tool itself provides financial data (income statements, etc.), which may confuse agents. It lacks clarity on output format. Given low complexity, completeness is adequate but flawed.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns (list of symbols with financial statement availability), which is necessary since the schema provides no information. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 accesses a list of companies with available financial statements, specifying its purpose as providing symbols for companies with such data. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve specific financial data or other symbol lists.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like getCompanySymbols or searchSymbol. Usage is only implied through the purpose, but no exclusions or context for choosing this tool are provided.

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