get_ratios

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: the tool computes ratios from SEC filings, and it clarifies that historical tickers like 'FB' resolve to the current entity (META). However, it does not mention data freshness, how missing or invalid data is handled, rate limits, or any authentication requirements. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 exceptionally concise: one sentence states the purpose, the next identifies the data source, and then a simple args list explains the ticker formats. Every sentence earns its place. The structure front-loads the main action and then provides specific input guidance without fluff.

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 that an output schema exists, return values do not need to be described. The description is clear enough for selecting the tool, and the ticker parameter is well documented for initial invocation. However, the optional parameters (year, period, quarter) lack any semantic guidance, and there is no comparison to sibling tools to prevent mis-selection. The description is adequate for basic use but not fully complete for a robust agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It excels for the required 'ticker' parameter, explaining accepted formats (ticker, CIK, stripped CIK, historical ticker) with examples. However, the optional year, quarter, and period parameters are completely unexplained. The schema only provides types and defaults (e.g., period defaults to 'annual'), leaving ambiguity about valid values and their effect on the result. The description covers one key parameter thoroughly but neglects the others.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Get computed financial ratios (margins, returns, leverage, growth) for a US public company.' It clearly enumerates the ratio categories, which distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that retrieve raw financials or single metrics. The scope ('US public company') and data source ('Derived from SEC filings') add further specificity.

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 this tool is for retrieving financial ratios, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of nearby alternatives like get_ratio_history, get_financials, or get_financial_metric. There is no mention of exclusions, such as non-US companies or point-in-time vs. historical data. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool's name and description alone.

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