get_ratios

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It signals a read-only operation and names the returned categories, but it does not clarify the time horizon, calculation basis, data source, or any limitations of the ratio values.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes representative examples. Every element earns its place and there is no repetition 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?

For a one-parameter read tool, the description is minimally adequate for invocation: the agent knows the resource and the required symbol. However, with no output schema and no behavioral context, details about format, scope, or data interpretation are missing, making it incomplete for richer decision-making.

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 describes the single parameter 'symbol' as 'Ticker, e.g. NVDA,' which fully covers the parameter. The description adds little to parameter understanding, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('valuation and financial ratios') and includes concrete examples like PE, PS, PB, margins, ROE, beta. It is understandable on its own, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_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 description implies usage via the tool name and the word 'Get,' but provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_financials or get_quote. No exclusions or conditions are stated.

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