get_fundamentals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states what data is returned but not key traits: whether it's read-only (implied), rate limits, data freshness/delay, or failure modes for unsupported symbols. For a market-data tool with zero annotations, this is thin.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences: the first lists exactly what is returned, the second states coverage. No filler, no repetition.

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 single-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose and scope adequately. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description doesn't explain return structure or data freshness, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the symbol format including '.IS' suffix and examples. The description adds the assurance that BIST and global stocks are both supported, complementing the schema's examples, but adds no syntax beyond that.

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?

Clear verb and resource: returns fundamental analysis indicators for a stock, with an enumerated list of what is included (P/E, EPS, P/B, dividend yield, margins, growth, beta, profile, analyst targets). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_technical_indicators and get_stock_history by naming the fundamental dimension. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so 4 not 5.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies use for fundamental analysis, but doesn't contrast with siblings such as get_technical_indicators, get_analyst_consensus, or get_earnings_info, nor does it state prerequisites.

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