get_fundamentals_statements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic fetch operation and lists statement types, but does not disclose authorization needs, rate limits, data coverage, response format, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency that leaves important runtime behavior unspecified.

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, focused sentence of approximately 16 words that front-loads the verb and the primary resource. There is no filler or redundant content, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to cover more behavioral context, but it does not. Although it lists the four statement types, it omits how optional parameters shape the query, what the returned data structure looks like, and whether the data is as-reported or adjusted. These gaps leave the description insufficiently complete for reliable tool invocation.

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 descriptions for all five parameters, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema—for example, it doesn't explain how year/quarter interact with startDate/endDate or what happens when date parameters are omitted. It provides no added parameter-level insight.

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 action ('Fetches') and resource ('historical fundamental statement data' with Balance Sheet, Income Statement, Cash Flow, Overview). It is specific enough to understand the tool's scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_fundamentals_daily_metrics or get_fundamentals_meta.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with the sibling fundamental data tools, leaving the agent without explicit usage direction.

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