get_valuation

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

Annotations already mark this read-only, idempotent and open-world, and the description goes well beyond them: currency conversion of statement figures to the trading currency, Turkish inflation accounting limits on P/E and P/S, and the rule that a ratio is null with a reason when the denominator is missing or non-positive. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Purpose and metric list are front-loaded, and the caveats are relevant, but the 'gives figures, not a verdict / never cheap or expensive' idea is stated twice ('Describes the past; not a view on value'), and the parenthetical exchange abbreviations add clutter. Efficient overall, with minor 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing return values, and it does so thoroughly: which ratios, over what periods, the industry comparison, currency handling, and null-with-reason semantics. An agent has enough to interpret results without guessing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds contextual semantics: the LEI-vs-symbol distinction and the trading-currency mismatch case that motivates price_symbol. It still doesn't restate the parameter syntax, hence a modest bump rather than a top score.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (valuation of a listed company) and enumerates the exact metrics returned: market value, P/E, P/B, P/S, TTM dividend yield, and industry-relative P/B. This is clearly separable from siblings like get_price_summary or get_financials, which cover prices and statements rather than derived ratios.

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?

Frames the use case concretely with example questions ('is X cheap or expensive', 'what is its P/E or P/B') and states an explicit boundary: it reports figures, never a verdict, and the answer should not editorialize. It does not name a sibling alternative for overlapping needs, so it stops short of a 5.

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