get_basic_financials

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return format ('str: Basic financial metrics in JSON format') and provides example metrics, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention error behavior, symbol validity requirements, or any other side effects beyond the read-only nature implied by 'get'.

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 concise and well-structured, with a one-sentence purpose, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds information and nothing is redundant.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose, parameter, and return format. It lists example metrics (P/E, market cap) but could mention edge cases or limitations. Overall, it's complete for the tool's complexity.

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 provides no description for the symbol parameter, but the description fully compensates with a clear explanation: 'The stock symbol to look up (e.g., AAPL for Apple Inc.)'. This adds meaning and a concrete example, making the parameter's purpose unmistakable.

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 'Get basic financial information for a company' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning metrics like P/E ratio and market cap, but it doesn't fully articulate the boundary relative to get_stock_price or get_stock_candles.

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 implies usage when basic financial metrics are needed, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools or provide exclusions. The example symbol (AAPL) gives a concrete use case, but no alternative guidance is offered.

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