get_financials

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

No annotations exist, and the description only explains the 'type' parameter mapping. It does not disclose data freshness, restrictions, side effects, or whether the tool is read-only.

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 brief but mixes purpose with parameter explanation in a single sentence. Could be structured more clearly with separate sentences for purpose and parameter details.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description partially covers the tool's behavior. However, without return value hints or error cases, an agent may not fully understand the outcome.

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 description adds meaning to the 'type' enum by mapping codes to full names (e.g., pl=Profit&Loss). However, it entirely fails to explain the 'slug' parameter, leaving that undocumented despite 0% schema coverage.

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 'Get financial statements' and lists supported types, making the resource and verb clear. However, it does not strongly distinguish from siblings like get_markets or get_company_overview, which are distinct but the tool's niche is evident.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context on prerequisites, frequency limits, or excluded use cases. The description is purely functional.

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