Get financial trends

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output type but does not explain how parameters like time ranges, timezone handling, or filtering affect results, nor any limitations or side effects. The description is too sparse to convey behavioral 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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Return' and immediately specifies the scope. Perfectly concise for its simplicity, though it under-delivers on content.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain key behaviors like time range handling, filtering, or timezone context, nor does it describe what the returned trends look like. The description is adequate for a trivial tool but insufficient for this complexity.

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%, and the description only partially explains one parameter (kind) by linking 'income_expense' to monthly trends and 'assets' to daily trends. The remaining seven parameters (keyword, start_time, end_time, ignore_case, year_month variants, use_transaction_timezone) receive no explanation, leaving users with inadequate semantic understanding.

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 returns financial trends, specifying two types: monthly income/expense trends and daily asset balance trends. This uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('financial trends'), and the granularity distinction differentiates it from sibling tools like get_financial_summary.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer other financial tools. The description is purely informative but lacks contextual usage direction.

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