Derivatives cash flow per exchange: net USD into/out of open interest over 1h/4h/24h windows, per core symbol. Positive = money flowing in.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_cash_flows"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by defining the sign convention (positive = money flowing in) and the aggregation windows, but it does not discuss freshness, exchange coverage, or return shape.
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?
Two compact sentences with the core metric front-loaded and the sign convention clearly appended. There is no redundant or filler wording.
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 no-parameter, read-only metric tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to understand what is returned and how to interpret the sign. Minor gaps remain around what counts as a core symbol and which exchanges are covered, but the definition is broadly 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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description appropriately focuses on the returned metric rather than inventing parameter details.
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 states a specific metric and scope: derivatives cash flow per exchange, net USD into/out of open interest over 1h/4h/24h windows, per core symbol. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as get_open_interest or get_cvd.
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 what the metric is but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. An agent can infer that it is for cash-flow analysis, but the definition does not route between this and related open-interest or flow tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.