Get Fundamentals

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the critical limitation that IBKR does not expose financial statements or valuation ratios, and that certain fields are deprecated. This gives the agent accurate expectations about data availability without contradicting the annotation.

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 three sentences: main purpose, limitation disclosure, and alternative guidance. Every sentence adds distinct value, and it's front-loaded with the core action.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists the return fields, warns about deprecated data, and redirects to sibling tools for other data types. This equips the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 sole parameter conid is documented in the schema as 'Contract ID', and the description reinforces that this is for a stock but does not add additional detail about how to find or format the conid. With 100% schema coverage, the description carries minimal extra parameter value, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get company metadata') and enumerates the exact data fields returned. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by listing what it does NOT provide and pointing to get_market_snapshot and get_price_history for those use cases.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it states the tool covers company metadata but not financial statements or valuation ratios, and then names the alternative tools for those needs. This is unambiguous exclusion and redirection.

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