get_financials

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that monetary values are in NZD thousands, the date range (FY2010-2025), and the count of records. However, it does not mention that the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the ticker is invalid.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds key contextual details (currency, data range, record count). Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately describes what is returned and the scope. It includes the data range and currency. Minor gap: does not explicitly mention pagination behavior for the 'limit' parameter, but this is inferred from its description.

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 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing the values of the 'statement' parameter (e.g., 'income = revenue/profit/EPS/dividends') and indicating that omitting it returns all four statements. This clarifies parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 the verb 'Get', the resource 'normalized financial statements for an NZX company', and specifies the types of statements returned (income, balance, cash flow, ratios). It also provides context on data range and currency, making it distinct from sibling tools like get_financials_xbrl.

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 for NZX company financial data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_earnings or get_dividends. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's purpose.

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