get_key_ratios

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool provides ratio data, which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose output structure, data vintage, coverage limitations, or whether all listed ratio categories are always present. For a tool with no annotation safety signals, this is a meaningful 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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the full scope of ratio categories without filler. It could be improved by adding a verb and a brief usage hint, but as written it is appropriately compact and readable.

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?

For a single-symbol read-only lookup tool, the category list gives an agent a reasonable idea of what to expect, and the only required parameter is obvious. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of the return shape or time period, the description is only minimally adequate for confident invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter, symbol, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining symbol format, exchange suffix, or expected value examples. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema field name, so this dimension falls to the lowest score.

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 identifies a clear resource (key ratios) and enumerates the specific categories returned: valuation, profitability, growth, leverage, cash flow, per-share and ownership ratios. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'fetches', but the tool name and category list make the purpose understandable. It partially differentiates from siblings by naming ratio-focused content, though not explicitly naming alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_financials, get_shareholding, or get_analyst_view. It merely lists what the tool returns. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and category list.

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