get_financial_statement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns every account line, implying a read operation, but does not mention authorization needs, rate limits, or any side effects. This is adequate for a straightforward data retrieval tool but lacks deeper context.

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: a one-line summary followed by a bulleted list of parameters with defaults. Every sentence is necessary and contributes to understanding the tool without 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 tool with 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameters, and a prerequisite step. It could mention the format or structure of the returned data more explicitly, but 'Full XBRL financial statements' gives adequate context. Overall, it is nearly complete.

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 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions), but the tool description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: corp_code as '8-digit DART code', year as 'Business year (e.g. 2025)', quarter with default 'FY' and valid values, and fs_div with defaults and meaning ('CFS' vs 'OFS'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 it returns 'Full XBRL financial statements for a Korean company' and 'every account line from the periodic report', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing `get_corp_code` as a prerequisite, setting it apart from other disclosure or quote 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?

The description explicitly instructs to 'Use `get_corp_code` first to resolve a name/ticker to the 8-digit corp_code', providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not discuss when not to use it or mention alternative tools beyond this prerequisite.

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