Get valuation multiples

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the data sources (Yahoo price + SEC filings), the TTM calculation method (sum of last 4 quarters or fiscal year fallback), and the explicit failure condition for currency mismatches. This goes well beyond the annotations and fully discloses the tool's operational 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 three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by concise TTM logic and a failure note. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is efficient for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 no output schema, the description lists all expected outputs (market cap, EV, P/E, etc.) and explains the computation inputs and failure mode. It provides enough context for an agent to decide when to call this tool and what to expect, making it complete for a read-only calculation tool.

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%, with both parameters (company and response_format) already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies. It mentions the company param's accepted forms, but that is already in the schema.

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 computes valuation multiples for US-listed SEC filers, listing specific metrics (P/E, EV/Revenue, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like market_get_stock_price (only price) and edgar_get_financial_statement (raw fundamentals) by specifying the combined output. The verb 'compute' is specific to the resource.

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 defines the tool's scope (US-listed SEC filers, combining live price and TTM fundamentals) and notes a failure case (currency mismatch for ADRs). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the scope implicitly excludes non-US or non-SEC entities and pure price queries, making the intended context clear.

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