get_cash_flows

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It states the operation is a 'list' (implying read-only), describes sorting by flow_datetime and aggregation of totals, which is transparent. It does not explicitly mention side effects, but the read-only nature is strongly implied.

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 two sentences, concise and highly informative. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds specific details about sorting and aggregation, with no wasted words.

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 description gives a good summary of the output: rows sorted by flow_datetime and aggregate totals. It does not enumerate every field, but given no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to understand what will be returned.

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 no parameter descriptions, but the description explains the purpose of the filters ('optional date range and kind filters') and the limit ('up to limit rows'). This covers the parameters adequately, though it does not specify formats or constraints individually.

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 lists cash flows (APORTE/RESGATE) with filters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_transactions and get_dividends. The specific resource and action are unambiguous.

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 mentions optional filters (date range, kind) and a limit parameter, giving a clear sense of when to apply them. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the specialized 'cash flows' scope makes the intended use evident.

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