Valuation Fintech

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds meaningful behavior: deterministic computation, no external calls, no authentication required, and the fact that unsupported fields return an error envelope rather than raising. The error-handling contract in particular is behavior an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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 routing information (prefer native tools) is front-loaded, which is good, but the opening sentence is padded with the redundant 'valuation valuation' phrasing and a server-exposition clause ('exposed through this server so one endpoint covers corporate, startup, and intangible valuation') that adds little. It is neither wasteful nor tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still notes the shared result envelope. Combined with the routing guidance, error-envelope behavior, and no-auth/no-external-call facts, it is nearly complete; the only real gap is that the fintech-specific computation remains undefined.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds that 'arguments' is forwarded to the underlying tool's schema and that unsupported fields produce an error envelope, which is useful but does not compensate for the fact that the actual accepted fields are undefined (additionalProperties: true) and must be discovered elsewhere.

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 the resource as a 'startup valuation' capability for the fintech case, but the phrasing 'a startup valuation valuation capability' is repetitive and never states what the fintech-specific valuation actually computes. It distinguishes itself from siblings only by saying native tools don't handle this case, which routes the agent but does not clarify the tool's own function. An agent knows it is a fallback valuation endpoint but not what makes the fintech case distinct.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('only for the startup valuation case that the native tools do not handle') and names the specific alternatives to prefer (valuation_dcf, valuation_nav, valuation_cca, calculate_wacc, calculate_ecl, black_scholes_price). The fallback condition and the preferred tools are both spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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