get_financial_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. The only clue is from the output schema existence, but the description itself is silent on behavior. This is insufficient for a tool that likely fetches external data.

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 short sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks structure and essential details. While there is no waste, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness. It is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 tool's complexity (two parameters, output schema exists) and the presence of many sibling tools covering specific financial statements, the description is incomplete. It does not specify which metrics are included, nor does it guide the agent to choose between this and other financial tools. The output schema might fill gaps, but the description itself is insufficient for 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions. However, the tool description does not add any context about the parameters beyond what is already in the schema. For example, it does not explain what 'symbol' represents (e.g., stock exchange) or how to use different output formats effectively. Baseline would be 3 due to coverage, but the description fails to add value.

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 '获取公司关键财务指标' which means 'get key financial metrics of a company'. The verb 'get' and resource 'financial metrics' are specific. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_balance_sheet or get_cash_flow, the name itself indicates a summary tool, reducing confusion.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other financial data tools. There is no mention of what 'key financial metrics' include or when one should prefer this over get_income_statement or get_realtime_data. The description lacks any usage context or exclusions.

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