get_financials

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool is a read operation ('Get') and summarizes returned metrics, which is useful. It does not mention data recency, source, or the fact that financials are fundamental metrics rather than live market data.

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?

Three short clauses; the purpose is front-loaded, and the Args/Returns structure is scannable. No filler.

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?

A one-parameter read tool with an output schema and a clear return summary is well covered. The only weakness is the missing routing note relative to a large sibling set, but that is a usage issue.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the docstring defines ticker as 'Stock symbol' and gives format examples (AAPL, MSFT), which is meaningful added value. For a single simple parameter this is nearly complete, though not exhaustive on accepted formats.

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 names a specific operation and resource: 'Get key financial metrics and ratios,' and further enumerates content categories (valuation ratios, margins, growth rates). It is distinct from siblings like get_quote or get_technical_indicators in terms of resource, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 usage for financial-metric needs but provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer get_financials over overlapping siblings such as get_quote or get_earnings. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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