Get financial vitals

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: values are in 'minor units,' each section has personal/household views with household potentially null, and metrics are defined with calculation context (e.g., rolling average, month-end cash balance). It doesn't cover edge cases like missing data, but the added null behavior and view structure are useful context beyond the annotation.

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 single, information-dense sentence that efficiently defines every metric and notes the view structure and units. It is front-loaded with the resource name and contains no filler or redundancy, earning its length.

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 thoroughly defines the output metrics and view structure, but it leaves ambiguity about whether the result covers a single month or multiple months (since the 'months' parameter is an array), and what the top-level return shape looks like. With no output schema, the description should clarify this aspect to be fully complete.

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 fully describes the only parameter 'months' (format, default), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not mention this parameter at all, which is acceptable per the baseline rule; it neither adds nor detracts from the schema's explanation of parameter 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 enumerates the specific metrics (monthlySurplus, steadyOutgoings, addingWealth, emergenciesCovered) that this tool returns, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_net_worth or get_spending_breakdown. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'retrieves,' presenting the resource as a noun phrase instead.

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 that this tool is for reviewing monthly financial health by defining the vitals, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives, nor does it state any exclusion conditions. Usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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