get_security_fundamentals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, and the description lists the return contents. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, nor disclose any edge cases, status codes, or data limitations, so it meets the minimum but lacks depth.

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 two sentences: the first states the function, the second gives usage examples. It is front-loaded, has no redundant words, and every 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool without output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the specific metrics returned and provides use cases. It could improve by mentioning what 'master data' includes, but overall it covers the essential context.

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 coverage is 100%, with the only parameter 'isin' adequately described as 'The security's ISIN'. The tool description adds 'by ISIN' but no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's function: 'Get master data and valuation fundamentals (P/E, P/B, P/S, F-Score)' and specifies the input by ISIN. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming concrete metrics and giving example use cases, making it unambiguous among the other financial tools.

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?

It provides clear context with 'Use this for "tell me about this holding" or "is this stock expensive?"' which tells the agent when to invoke it. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, just the intended contexts.

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