get_pe_ratiosRetrieve price-to-earnings ratios for all instruments, including interim basic/diluted, audited, and trailing values. Use to compare valuation metrics across the Dhaka Stock Exchange.
P/E table for all instruments (interim basic/diluted, audited, trailing).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 states the output is a P/E table and lists ratio types, but it does not clarify data coverage, update frequency, point-in-time behavior, limitations, or whether the table is restricted to a particular market or index. This is insufficient for a no-annotation tool.
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 with no filler, and the core scope 'P/E table for all instruments' is front-loaded. The trailing parenthetical is somewhat cryptic but compact. It could be clearer, but it earns its place.
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?
This is a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, so the agent has structural information about the return value. However, the description does not explain what 'all instruments' covers or what the listed P/E variants mean in practice. Given no annotations and no usage guidance, it is minimally adequate but leaves 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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden on the description. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not introduce any conflicting or misleading parameter information.
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 tool as returning a P/E table and scopes it to 'all instruments,' which distinguishes it from single-instrument siblings like get_quote or get_company_profile. It also lists ratio variants (interim basic/diluted, audited, trailing), adding useful specificity. It is slightly noun-phrase-like rather than verb-led, but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_fundamentals or get_quote. The phrase 'for all instruments' implies a market-wide use case, but there is no stated exclusion or comparison to sibling tools. The agent must infer when this is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.