get_fundamentals

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns 27+ indicators and uses latest data by default, but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. Adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 concise and front-loaded with key information. The Args section is structured, though there is a minor blank line. No wasted sentences.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, parameters, and data source. Adequately 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides clear, meaningful explanations for both parameters: ticker with examples (PETR4, VALE3) and reference_date with format (YYYY-MM-DD) and purpose (historical snapshot).

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 the tool fetches fundamental indicators for Brazilian stocks, listing specific metrics like P/L, P/VP, EV/EBITDA, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dividends or get_price_history.

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 explains it uses latest data unless reference_date is provided, giving context on when to invoke. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the sibling tool names imply appropriate usage.

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