financial_balance_sheet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get balance sheet data,' which implies a read operation but does not disclose any limitations, data range, or side effects. No information about authentication, response structure, or edge cases is given.

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, focused sentence that avoids any waste. It is front-loaded with the key information (get + resource) and does not include irrelevant details.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the schema covers parameters. However, the description is sparse and does not explain the difference between VCI and KBS sources or the period choice, which might be relevant for an agent. The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation, but the description leaves some context gaps.

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 schema already describes all three parameters (symbol, period, source) with clear descriptions, giving 100% coverage. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource (balance sheet data) and the verb (get), distinguishing it from sibling tools like financial_income_statement and financial_cash_flow. However, it lacks additional scope details such as the company symbol or period options, which are only in the schema.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like financial_income_statement or financial_cash_flow. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The only context is the tool name itself, which implies its purpose.

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