get_financial_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, computational nature (e.g., derived vs. raw), or whether it returns ratios or raw figures. The phrase 'key financial metrics' is vague and lacks behavioral specifics.

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 concise sentence with no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose, efficiently conveying the tool's function.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on the types of metrics returned (e.g., ratios, growth rates) and any prerequisites. Some expansion would improve completeness.

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%, with both parameters documented. The description adds context that the metrics come from three statements, but it does not add specific meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves key financial metrics from the three major financial statements, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_balance_sheet and get_income_statement, which return individual statements rather than aggregated metrics.

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 for obtaining aggregated financial metrics but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_income_statement or get_cash_flow. No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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