Get Liquidity Ratios

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific ratios returned, which is useful but not rich behavioral context. It does not discuss pagination, default ordering, or error behavior; however, the bar is lower given the annotations, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 entire description is a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, followed by a succinct list of the included ratios. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple list-like nature of this tool and the rich schema covering all 8 parameters, the description is mostly complete. It lacks an explicit statement about the return format (e.g., time-series per period), but the named ratios and the tool's context among sibling financial data tools make the intended output clear enough.

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 100%, meaning every parameter (identifier, limit, order, period, date filters, fiscal year filters) already has a clear description. The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('liquidity ratios'), then enumerates the exact ratios included (cash, current, quick, cash-flow-to-liabilities, Altman Z-Score). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_profitability_ratios or get_credit_ratios.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The reader must infer from the ratio names that this is for liquidity analysis. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so it meets the 'implied usage' standard.

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