get_financials_xbrl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns IFRS taxonomy-tagged data with period context and unit, and mentions scope (116 companies, FY2010-2025). However, it does not mention auth needs, rate limits, side effects, or whether the tool is read-only (implied by 'get' but not explicit).

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 main sentences plus a concise scope sentence, totaling 65 words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides specifics. No filler or redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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 return format (tagged financial statements with XBRL concepts, period, unit) and scope. However, it lacks details on pagination, error handling, rate limits, or how to handle multiple years. For a data retrieval tool, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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% for both parameters (ticker and year). The description adds little beyond the schema: it gives example tickers (AIR, FPH, MEL) and clarifies 'fiscal year' for the year parameter. No additional constraints or semantics provided, so 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 clearly states the tool returns machine-readable iXBRL financial statements for NZX companies, specifying income statements, balance sheets, etc. It distinguishes from siblings like get_financials by emphasizing structured XBRL format, but does not explicitly call out when to use this over similar tools.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'when the user wants structured/machine-readable financial data, XBRL output, or data for programmatic consumption.' It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use or list alternative tools like get_financials for human-readable output.

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