get_financials

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses source provenance (SEC vs unofficial), the need to verify material figures in KAP filings, and its behavior of flagging missing/non-reconciling quarters and implausible jumps. It also clarifies that ratios are fractions, which prevents misinterpretation.

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 dense but every clause carries information: metrics, time horizons, inflation handling, data-quality behavior, source caveats, and units. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps the caveats at the end, with no 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned figures (up to eight quarters, four years, as-reported and real), growth comparisons, and quality flags. It also gives market-specific verification guidance, so an agent knows what to expect and how to trust the data.

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 sole parameter symbol is fully described in the input schema as 'A symbol returned by search_assets,' so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add further syntax or formatting details about the parameter, leaving the schema as the sufficient source.

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 opens with 'Summarize a company's recent financial statements,' a specific verb+resource, then enumerates exact metrics such as revenue, margins, debt-to-equity, and growth rates. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_price_summary and compare_real_return, which target price and return data rather than statement-level financials.

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 text makes its context clear—financial-statement summarization with inflation adjustment and data-quality flags—so an agent can infer when it is relevant. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer it over sibling tools or when not to use it, and it names no alternatives.

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