screener_get_balance_sheet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description is not burdened with safety details. It adds context about multi-year data and specific line items but doesn't elaborate on limitations or error scenarios.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every element (multi-year, balance sheet, specific items) adds 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?

Given the simple tool, rich annotations, and existence of output schema, the description adequately states what the tool returns. However, lack of parameter semantics reduces completeness for proper invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameters (symbol, consolidated, response_format). The tool's purpose is clear, but the agent receives no guidance on how to use optional parameters like consolidated or response_format beyond their names.

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 is a balance sheet with specific components (equity, reserves, borrowings, assets) and indicates multi-year scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like screener_get_profit_loss and screener_get_cash_flow.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, the clear purpose and distinct resource name make it obvious when balance sheet data is needed. Lacks explicit differentiation from other financial statement tools.

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