get_financial_metric

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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight. It discloses a nuanced behavior about per-point currency and taxonomy metadata being authoritative when a filer changes presentation currency mid-series. For a read-only data retrieval tool, this is meaningful context, though it does not mention rate limits, error handling, or pagination.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a brief metadata note and then organized metric lists by category. The metric lists are long but justified since they define the metric parameter. The 'Args' section is terse. Overall, it is dense but each sentence contributes value.

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?

The description covers the tool's core behavior, metric vocabulary, and ticker formats, and an output schema exists to document return values. It lacks explicit guidance on period values (e.g., 'annual' vs. 'quarterly') and date range semantics, but those are inferable from the parameter names and defaults. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a data-retrieval tool.

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 has 0% coverage for parameters in the description, but the description compensates significantly by enumerating all valid metric names and detailing accepted ticker formats (including CIK and historical ticker resolution). However, period, from_year, and to_year are not explained beyond their schema defaults, leaving minor ambiguity around period values.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Get a single financial metric over time.' It explicitly states the tool returns a time series for trend analysis, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_financials (which presumably returns multiple metrics). The extensive list of supported metrics further clarifies scope.

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 when to use the tool through 'single financial metric' and 'time series for trend analysis,' suggesting it's for one metric over a time range. It provides ticker format guidance including CIK and historical tickers, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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