get_stock_valuation

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation by mentioning 'Get', but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or mention any side effects, rate limits, or data freshness. The description is minimal but adequate for a simple data retrieval tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and lists key output examples. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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's simplicity (single parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool returns (list of valuation metrics). Without an output schema, the description compensates by enumerating representative metrics, though it does not detail the exact return format.

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 100% with one required parameter 'symbol' described as 'Stock symbol (e.g. 'AAPL.US', '700.HK').' The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only lists output metrics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema already fully covers the parameter.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'stock valuation metrics', with specific examples like P/E ratio, P/B ratio, market cap, etc. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_stock_ratings (which likely gives ratings) and get_company_overview (broader info).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 16 sibling tools, the description offers no comparisons or context to help an agent decide. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use valuation metrics vs. get_stock_ratings or get_company_overview.

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