get_valuation_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that results are quarterly time series, but discloses nothing about auth needs, data sourcing, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then cleanly structured Args/Returns blocks. Compact with no wasted sentences, though the Args line largely restates the obvious.

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?

A single-parameter, read-only lookup whose safety profile is covered by annotations and whose return shape is documented by an output schema. The description is adequate; only the missing format hint for the ticker argument leaves a small gap.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It labels the parameter ('ticker: Stock ticker symbol'), which is minimally helpful but adds no format guidance (e.g., 'AAPL' vs 'AAPL.US', exchange suffixes), so it only partially fills the gap.

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 clear verb+resource ('Get valuation measures') and enumerates the specific metrics returned (market cap, EV, P/E, PEG, P/S, P/B, EV/EBITDA), plus the time scope ('now and for the last quarters'). It is easy to distinguish from siblings like get_balance_sheet, but it does not differentiate itself from the potentially overlapping get_key_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?

The description says what the tool returns but never states when to use it versus alternatives such as get_key_ratios, get_financial_summary, or get_historical_comparison. No prerequisites, exclusions, or routing guidance are provided.

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