get_cash_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool 'gets' cash flow data, with no disclosure of data source, limitations, error behavior, or read-only confirmation. This is minimal behavioral transparency.

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 and well-structured, with a clear one-line purpose followed by an Args block. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 the tool's simplicity, an output schema exists, and the core parameters are described, the description is mostly complete. It lacks usage context and deeper behavioral details, but it is sufficient for basic tool selection and invocation among the sibling 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?

The description compensates for the 0% schema description coverage by explaining both parameters: ticker with an example ('AAPL') and period with allowed values ('annual' or 'quarterly'). It adds practical semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't mention the default value for period.

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 the tool retrieves a cash flow statement and lists the major components (operating, investing, financing, free cash flow). This specific verb+resource clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_income_statement and get_balance_sheet.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_income_statement or get_balance_sheet. The description implies it should be used for cash flow data, but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions.

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