get_financial_statement

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the data is cached. The description only states what data is provided, lacking transparency on side effects or prerequisites.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with '재무제표:'. It contains all necessary information without redundancy. However, it could be broken into multiple sentences for clarity.

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 complexity of financial data and the absence of an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the returned data contains (e.g., structure of all account items) or how to interpret the response. More context on output format is needed for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all parameters having detailed descriptions including enum values. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema; it does not explain parameter interactions or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to high schema 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 states that the tool provides all account items of XBRL financial statements from periodic reports for listed and major non-listed companies. It uses a specific verb ('제공합니다') and resource ('XBRL재무제표의 모든계정과목'), and the scope ('상장법인 및 주요 비상장법인') distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stock_base_info or get_disclosure.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what the tool does but does not provide context about when it is appropriate or when to use other tools like get_disclosure or get_corp_code.

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