TreasuryOS

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Implies read-only behavior through verbs 'scan', 'calculates', and 'recommends', and discloses analytical outputs (VaR, strategies). However, missing explicit safety declarations (read-only confirmation), scope limitations, or side effects. Does not contradict any annotations.

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 sentences, zero waste. First sentence establishes core action and domain; second sentence elaborates value-add outputs. Front-loaded with essential information, no filler text.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, description adequately covers functional scope by explaining inputs (implied: current vendor payables data) and outputs (VaR calculations, hedging recommendations). Sufficient for a simple analytical tool, though formal output schema would improve completeness.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters. Description correctly makes no parameter claims. With zero parameters, baseline is 4 as per rubric guidelines for empty parameter sets.

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?

Specific verb 'Scan' with clear resource 'unhedged FX exposures in vendor payables'. Second sentence adds capabilities (VaR calculation, hedging recommendations). Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'scan_idle_balances' by specifying FX domain vs. cash balances, and from other financial analysis tools like 'analyze_working_capital' by focusing specifically on foreign exchange risk.

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?

Provides implied usage through specific domain context (vendor payables FX exposure), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like 'analyze_working_capital' (which may also touch payables) or 'optimize_payment_timing'. No mention of prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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