fundamentals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds context about the returned data categories (valuation, consensus, earnings, dividends), which goes beyond annotations. However, it omits details like potential API rate limits or data freshness.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and avoids unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second lists the data returned.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, existing output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool returns. However, it could mention how the symbol parameter affects the output (e.g., if missing symbols trigger errors) and any implicit assumptions.

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% and the description provides no additional meaning for the 'symbol' parameter beyond its name. It does not specify required format (e.g., ticker symbol, case sensitivity, or exchange prefix), which is critical for correct usage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get fundamental data for a symbol.' It then specifies the types of data returned (valuation, analyst consensus, earnings, dividends), making it distinct from sibling tools like 'analyze' or 'scan'.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or comparisons to siblings. Usage context is only implied from the stated output.

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