get_balance_sheet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data source (SEC EDGAR XBRL) and that data is 'parsed' and 'standardized', but omits critical traits such as data freshness, error handling (e.g., unfilled data for missing filings), rate limits, or typical response format. This leaves an agent uncertain 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 a single sentence of 14 words that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, source, and key content. Every word is meaningful; no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded and highly concise.

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?

Despite good schema coverage and conciseness, the description lacks completeness for an agent. There is no output schema, so the agent needs clues about the response structure (e.g., array of periods, detailed breakdown). The description only hints at the three main categories but not how they are organized or what fields are included. This is a notable gap for financial data retrieval.

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% as both parameters (ticker, period) have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate further.

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 identifies the tool as returning a standardized balance sheet for US public companies from SEC EDGAR XBRL filings, specifying the key components (assets, liabilities, equity). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_cash_flow and get_income_statement through the explicit mention of balance sheet items and the standardized format.

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 retrieving balance sheet data but does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_income_statement for income statement data). The context is implied by the tool name and description, but no 'when not to use' or alternative references are given.

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