equity-fundamentals

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

No annotations provided. Description mentions pricing and that it returns raw data, but does not disclose rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or potential limitations beyond the listed metrics.

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?

Description is one paragraph that efficiently lists metrics and use cases. No verbose repetition, though could be more structured with bullet points.

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?

No output schema exists, and description does not specify return format or data types. The metric list is helpful, but incomplete for an agent to parse results without additional context.

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 covers 100% of parameters (ticker). Description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 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?

Clearly states it provides fundamental valuation metrics for US public companies, listing specific metrics (P/E, PEG, etc.) and use cases (valuation screening, DCF inputs). Distinguishes from siblings like equity-brief and equity-technicals by specifying raw data.

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 context of use (raw data, no API key) but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. Siblings listed imply use for briefs or technicals, but no exclusion criteria given.

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