get_ratios

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals tier-based limitations (Starter vs Pro), which parameters (history, period, metrics) are affected, and the scope of data (latest vs history, core vs extended). This is useful beyond the schema.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds tier differentiation. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) which likely details the return structure, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, scope, and tier constraints. Could mention that specific ratio types are not listed, but the schema handles that.

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 enums and descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds tier context but does not repeat or enhance param details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 gets calculated financial ratios for one Saudi-listed company, specifying the region and constraint to a single company. It distinguishes between Starter and Pro tiers, indicating the scope of data available.

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 provides context about Starter vs Pro capabilities but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over siblings like get_financials or get_historical. Usage is implied but not differentiated from alternatives.

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