Idx Sanitize Financials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses what categories of problems the tool addresses and implies it adjusts or flags metrics, but it does not say whether it returns corrected values, emits warnings, or only detects issues. This is reasonably informative but not fully transparent.

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 one tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning, and the three target risk categories make the tool's purpose memorable without unnecessary elaboration.

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 output schema exists and all parameters are fully documented, the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to decide when to call this tool and what inputs to supply. The only gap is a clearer statement of what the sanitization output looks like, but that is less critical because the output schema is present.

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 all 6 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level conceptual mapping (e.g., thin-equity ROE relates to roe_pct/der, USD mismatch relates to usd_idr_rate/pbv), but it does not provide any additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already gives.

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 ('sanitize') and a clear resource ('financial metrics'), and it names three concrete correction targets: USD denomination mismatches, thin-equity ROE distortions, and solvency traps. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like quote, chart, and orderbook, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with an alternative tool.

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 when the tool is relevant—when financial metrics may be distorted by currency mismatches, thin equity, or solvency issues—but it never states an explicit 'use when' condition or mentions any alternatives/exclusions. The context is inferable rather than directly specified.

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