美股财务报表

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It explains the multi-source fallback behavior and that yfinance is free, but it omits details like failure modes, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The fallback order is useful but insufficient for full transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose and supported by data source details. Every word adds value; no unnecessary content.

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?

With three parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the data source strategy and report types. It lacks details on return format or error handling, but given the tool's complexity, it provides adequate context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 for all three parameters. The description adds context about data sources and the types of reports (balance_sheet, etc.), but this is largely redundant with the schema. No additional parameter-level details are provided beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 US stock financial statements (balance sheet, income statement, cash flow). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the data source fallback (Alpha Vantage then yfinance), which is unique among related tools.

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 guidance on when to use each data source: Alpha Vantage requires an API key, while yfinance is free. This helps the agent prioritize sources. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like stock_financial_compare or stock_earnings_us, leaving some ambiguity.

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