get_cash_flows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It lists parameters and a return type but does not disclose behavioral aspects such as error conditions, rate limits, data freshness, or side effects. The 'toon' format is mentioned as optimized for AI but not explained further.

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 a compact docstring with five lines, each serving a purpose: tool purpose, parameter definitions, and return type. There is no extraneous information, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action.

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?

While parameters are well explained, the description lacks context about output behavior (e.g., what 'toon' format returns, how results differ per output_format), error handling, or prerequisites. Given the complexity from sibling tools, some guidance on when to use this over other financial statement tools 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning (symbol, period, output_format) and adding a helpful note about 'toon' output. All three parameters are covered with clear semantics.

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 cash flows of a company, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('cash flows'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_balance_sheets and get_income_statements by focusing on a distinct financial statement.

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 implies usage for cash flow data, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_income_statements). No when-not-to-use or contextual advice is provided.

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