Get financial statement (SEC XBRL)

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

The description goes well beyond the read-only annotations by disclosing important behaviors: 'latest filing wins, so restatements are reflected', YTD quarterly values are derived by subtraction and flagged, and cash flow includes free cash flow (CFO − capex). These are non-obvious transformations an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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?

Four dense sentences with zero filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by scoping, key behavioral caveats, and an explicit fallback. Every sentence earns its place.

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 that there is no output schema, the description still conveys the returned structure ('line items × periods'), data caveats, YTD derivation, and free cash flow inclusion. Combined with the complete parameter schema and sibling fallback, an agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context about output shape and derived values but does not add per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so no higher score is warranted.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the exact resources ('income statement, balance sheet or cash flow statement'), source ('SEC XBRL filings'), and result shape ('line items × periods'). It clearly differentiates itself from concept-level tools by naming them as the fallback for individual tags.

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 final sentence gives explicit routing guidance: 'For any tag not covered here use edgar_search_concepts + edgar_get_concept.' It also specifies applicability (10-K/10-Q, IFRS for 20-F/40-F filers), so an agent can decide when this tool is appropriate and when to delegate.

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