Get Financial Statement from Screener.in

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns a multi-period table with a specific JSON structure, and explains error cases (statement section not present, company not found). This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling. Every sentence serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the most important information. 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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, multi-period tabular return data, no output schema), the description is thorough. It covers input semantics, output structure (section, periods, rows), examples, and error handling. No gaps remain for a typical use case.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description's Args section restates parameter meanings with examples, but the schema already has detailed descriptions for each property. It adds modest value by showing how parameters are used in queries.

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 fetches multi-period financial statement tables from Screener.in, listing five specific statement types. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly saying when not to use it (for current P/E or market cap, use screener_get_company_overview).

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?

Provides explicit examples for when to use the tool with realistic queries ('Show me TCS's profit & loss' → identifier='TCS', statement='profit-loss') and when not to ('Don't use when: You just want current P/E or market cap'). Also notes error handling for missing statements.

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