get_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool returns 50+ ratios but does not disclose if it is read-only, what happens on invalid ticker, whether all ratios are returned at once, or if there are rate limits. The behavioral traits are insufficiently described.

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 listing examples, which is concise and front-loaded. No extraneous words. However, it lacks structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) that could enhance readability.

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 the tool's single parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention date ranges, time periods, or output format (object/array). Siblings like get_balance_sheet often include date parameters, and this omission could confuse agents. More detail is needed.

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 already describes the ticker parameter with examples (AAPL, MSFT, BRK.B), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds 'US public company' context but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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 provides '50+ financial ratios and metrics' for a US public company, with a list of examples (ROE, ROIC, margins, etc.). This directly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_balance_sheet or get_income_statement, which return raw financial statements.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description implies it is for ratios rather than raw data, but does not state exclusions or alternatives. This is acceptable but could be improved with explicit 'use this for ratios, use get_income_statement for revenue details'.

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