Get financial statements

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses behaviors: returns up to 17 items, in JPY, includes metadata (accounting standard, consolidation, fiscal year, source document), and lists unavailable items with a reason. It lacks mention of read-only status or rate limits but provides solid transparency.

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 convey all essential information: what is retrieved, quantity, currency, metadata, and behavior for missing items. No redundancy or filler; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values: financial statement components, item count, currency, metadata fields, and handling of unavailable items. It is self-contained and adequate for agent understanding.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'code' parameter already described as a 4-digit securities code. The description adds a concrete example ('7203' Toyota) but does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 states it retrieves financial statements (income, balance sheet, cash-flow) with metadata for one company using a 4-digit code. It specifies up to 17 items in JPY and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a single company's financials.

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 use for getting a specific company's financials but does not explicitly exclude use cases or compare to siblings like compare_companies for multiple companies. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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