get_financials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: values are sourced from SEC XBRL, each carries its concept and filing accession, and the `filings` map resolves accessions to URLs. It stops short of covering freshness or pagination, so not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the payload contents. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well by naming statement groups, derived metrics, and the accession/URL mapping. It is not fully complete because parameter behavior (notably `years`) goes unexplained and no usage routing is offered.

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. It partially does: 'annual (and LTM)' maps to the include_ltm toggle, and 'filings' explains an output field. However, `years` (default 5) is never explained in scope or behavior, leaving a real gap in a 3-param tool.

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 verb+resource (standardized financials from SEC XBRL filings) and enumerates the exact contents (income statement, cash flow, balance sheet plus derived EBITDA, FCF, total/net debt). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_market_data, get_filings, and get_comps without the agent opening a 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?

Usage is implied by the resource but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against siblings such as get_filings or get_comps. An agent can infer it is the financial-statement tool, but nothing states when to prefer an alternative.

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