get_financial_statement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that returns are raw EastMoney field names, rows ordered most-recent-first, empty columns dropped, and the critical YTD cumulative behavior for income and cash_flow. This is thorough and honest about the tool's behavior.

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 moderately long but well-organized with sections, bullet points, and bolded emphasis. Every sentence provides necessary detail; there is no fluff. It could be slightly shorter, but the complexity of the data warrants the length.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return structure (raw field names, row order, dropped columns) and how to interpret the data (cumulative YTD, subtraction for single quarters). It covers all aspects a user needs to understand the output, making the tool useable without external documentation.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must add meaning. It provides the stock code format, explains each statement enum value, gives default period count recommendation, and warns about raising period only when needed. This far exceeds what the schema offers.

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 specifies that the tool fetches a full financial statement from EastMoney via akshare, listing all statement types and their content. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_balance_data by emphasizing that this returns all columns and periods in one call, and it provides concrete details on field names and ordering.

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?

It advises to request only the needed statement because each fetch is a separate endpoint. It also explains the cumulative nature of income and cash flow data, implicitly guiding when to use this vs. calculating single-quarter values. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or list alternatives beyond the sibling names.

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