get_fundamentals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that each indicator is the latest value from VNDIRECT, acknowledges that some indicators may be missing (e.g., dividendYield for non-dividend stocks), and mentions an 'error' field that explains failures. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 entire description consists of two concise sentences in Vietnamese: the first states the tool's purpose and data source, the second addresses data availability and error reporting. Every clause adds value with no redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter tool without an output schema, the description explains the data source, the list of indicators, the behavior when data is missing, and the existence of an 'error' field. It does not detail the exact return structure (e.g., JSON keys) but covers the essential information an agent needs. This makes it largely complete, though a formal output schema would eliminate ambiguity.

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 input schema fully documents the single 'symbol' parameter with examples (HPG, VNM, FPT), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 uses the verb 'Lấy' (get) with a specific resource: fundamental indicators (P/E, P/B, EPS, ROE, ROA, dividend yield) for a Vietnamese stock from VNDIRECT. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling technical analysis tools like get_ohlc or detect_macd_divergence.

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 the tool is for retrieving fundamental data, in contrast to the technical indicators provided by sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or mention exclusions. The context of the sibling list makes the differentiation clear.

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