get_cash_flow_statement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that Yahoo is the data source, that approximately 5 years of annual data or 5-6 quarters are available, and that periods are returned newest-first. These details go beyond the schema and help the agent set expectations.

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 compact and well-structured: the lead sentence states the tool's purpose and content, the second sentence adds data source and availability constraints, and the parameter lines are minimal and useful. No filler or redundant wording.

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 tool is simple, has an output schema, and the description provides source, period depth, ordering, and parameter examples. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. A minor gap is that it does not explain behavior for tickers with multiple listings, though the exchange-suffix examples partially cover this.

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%, but the description documents both parameters. The symbol parameter gains meaningful examples like 'RELIANCE', 'TCS.NS', and 'TCS.BO', which the schema lacks. The period parameter repeats the enum but also adds context by linking annual to ~5 years and quarterly to ~5-6 quarters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the cash flow statement' for an NSE/BSE-listed Indian equity, and enumerates the exact components returned (operating cash flow, capex, free cash flow, financing cash flow, dividends paid). This 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?

The intended use is implied: choose this tool when raw cash flow statement data is needed. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when the agent needs analytical assessments like analyze_cash_flow_quality instead.

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