get_financials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it fetches the 'newest observation' per metric, which hints at time-series behavior, but it does not explain key behavioral aspects such as the output format (though output schema exists), potential missing data handling, or whether metrics must be from a predefined list. With no annotations and only a one-sentence description, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the core action without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 presence of an output schema that fully documents the return shape, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with no annotations and no mention of edge cases (e.g., missing metrics, invalid tickers, or handling of multiple observations), the description is only partially complete. An agent could call it correctly but might not handle unexpected results well.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description clarifies that 'metrics' is a list of requested metrics and 'ticker' is the entity to fetch for, which maps directly to the schema properties, but it adds no detail about valid metric formats, case sensitivity, or how to specify multiple metrics beyond the array structure. It adds minimal value beyond 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 states a specific action ('Fetch the newest observation for each requested metric') and a resource ('one ticker'), which is clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_companies or run_sector_screen that operate at different scopes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_hiring_signals, though the metric-based focus makes the distinction inferable.

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 fetching financial metrics per ticker, which is clear enough, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_sector_screen (e.g., for screening multiple companies) or list_companies (e.g., for discovering tickers). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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