fmp_cash_flow

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full behavioral disclosure burden but adds no details: no units, sort order, default period behavior, data availability, or limitations. It is a bare label and does not disclose any operational characteristics.

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?

At one short phrase it is not wasteful, but it is underspecified rather than concise; a useful description still needs a verb and context. It fails to earn its place as the sole descriptive 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?

The input schema and output schema make the invocation structure recoverable (required symbol, optional annual/quarter period and limit), so the tool is not completely opaque. However, without annotations or usage/behavior context, the definition still lacks enough context for confident selection among sibling financial-statement tools.

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% and the description never mentions symbol, period, or limit. The schema's titles and defaults carry all parameter semantics; the description adds no meaning or guidance about these inputs.

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 is just the noun phrase 'Cash flow statements,' which restates the tool name 'fmp_cash_flow' and lacks a verb such as 'retrieve' or 'list.' It names the report subject but does not clearly state an action or differentiate the tool from sibling financial statement tools beyond the label.

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 usage guidance is provided: the description does not say when to use this tool versus fmp_income_statement, fmp_balance_sheet, or other siblings, and it gives no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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