get_financials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the symbol requirement and implicitly that the tool is a read operation, but does not describe error handling, rate limits, or the nature of the response. The lack of detail on optional parameters' behavior (e.g., what happens if type or metrics are omitted) is a significant gap.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise with no wasted words, but could benefit from additional structure (e.g., bullet points) to improve scanability.

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?

While an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values), the tool has 8 parameters with many optional combinations. The description provides only high-level purpose, leaving the agent to infer when to use specific parameters. Given the tool's complexity, the description is marginally adequate but not fully complete.

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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, merely reinforcing that the symbol must be exact. It does not explain how the optional parameters (type, period, result, etc.) affect the output or provide context beyond their schema descriptions.

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 retrieves financial statements (income, balance sheet, cash flow) and key financial data. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_ratios and get_dividends by focusing on core statements, but does not explicitly contrast them, which prevents a perfect score.

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 specifies when to use this tool ('for income statement, balance sheet, and cash flow requests') and includes a key prerequisite ('Requires exact exchange symbol'). It also hints at fallback behavior (use companies_list for company names), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives.

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