Company Financials (SEC XBRL)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by noting each figure is stamped with exact filing provenance and that no API key is required. It does not disclose potential limitations such as coverage gaps for non-XBRL filers or how recent the data is, but the provenance detail provides meaningful transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the key financial outputs, followed by provenance and input details. Every sentence contributes essential information with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what data is returned, provenance, accepted input types, and access requirements. It does not explicitly mention whether the result covers a single fiscal period or a range, but the essentials are sufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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 input schema fully documents the single 'query' parameter with a description covering ticker, company name, or CIK. The description repeats this information without adding further nuance, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's already high coverage.

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 identifies the tool as returning key structured financial metrics (revenue, net income, total assets, cash, diluted EPS) from SEC XBRL data, with authoritative provenance. It does not use an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the resource and scope are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools dealing with filings.

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 gives helpful usage context by stating accepted input types (ticker, name, CIK) and that no API key is needed. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to siblings like finance_filings or finance_filing_read, so when to choose this over alternatives is implied rather than stated.

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