Analizar flujo de un instrumento

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by stating the tool accepts many instrument classes (stocks, ETFs, indices, FX, futures, crypto) and by listing the computed metrics, but says nothing about data latency, rate limits, or failure behavior for invalid symbols.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states purpose first, then the output metrics; nothing is wasted. The long parenthetical of symbol examples makes it slightly dense but still readable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does list the returned metrics (volume, relative volume, CMF, net flow, score). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a single fully documented parameter, this is close to complete, though it does not explain how to interpret CMF or the score.

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 100% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does extend the symbol examples beyond the schema's list (^GSPC, EURUSD=X, GC=F), confirming breadth of accepted formats, but adds no syntax or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Names a specific verb (analyze) and a specific resource (money flow of a Yahoo Finance symbol), and enumerates the metrics returned (USD volume, relative volume, CMF, net flow, score). It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings such as get_liquidity_overview, get_capital_flows or compare_flows, so an agent cannot tell it apart from those without opening the schema.

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 usage ('any Yahoo Finance symbol') but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. With a large sibling set of flow/liquidity tools, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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