TreasuryOS

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. While 'scan' implies a read-only analysis, the description does not confirm whether this tool merely reports opportunities or initiates actual yield optimization transactions. It also fails to describe the return format or data sources despite having no output schema.

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 efficiently structured with two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose effectively. The second sentence listing arguments is concise but somewhat informal ('Args:'), which slightly detracts from professional clarity but remains readable.

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 two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter defaults. However, it lacks explanation of return values (critical without an output schema) and operational details like rate limits or data scope, making it minimally viable but incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate heavily. While it lists parameter names and defaults, it fails to explain semantics: what 'operating_reserve_pct' calculates (excluded liquid cash percentage?) or what 'target_yield_bps' represents (minimum basis points threshold?). The 'Args:' format is minimal documentation.

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 provides a specific verb ('Scan') and clear resource ('idle cash') with a distinct purpose ('earn higher yields'). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like get_cash_position by focusing on yield optimization opportunities rather than merely reporting balances, though it does not explicitly clarify when to use this versus analyze_working_capital.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_cash_position or analyze_working_capital. There are no 'when-to-use' conditions, prerequisites (e.g., account types needed), or explicit exclusions mentioned.

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