interest_payments

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

No annotations are provided, so description must carry full burden. It states 'gets' (read operation) but provides no other behavioral details (e.g., whether it returns raw data or aggregates, any limitations, or data freshness). With no annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description is adequate for a simple read operation but lacks depth.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff. Perfectly concise for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

Tool has zero parameters and an output schema, so return format is defined elsewhere. Description is short but covers purpose. However, given the many sibling tools and no annotations, some usage context would improve completeness. Still, it's adequate.

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, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. According to guidelines, 0 parameters baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is fine since none exist.

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?

Description clearly states it 'gets interest payment history from cash management'. The verb 'gets' and resource 'interest payment history' are specific. Among siblings like margin_interest, dividends, and stock_loan_payments, this tool is distinct by referencing 'cash management'.

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 on when to use this tool versus other interest-related siblings (e.g., margin_interest). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives. The description is insufficient for an agent to decide between this and similar tools.

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