Comparar flujos

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool ranks or orders the results, but it does not disclose the ranking criteria, return format, or any limitations beyond the schema's min/max item constraints.

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 definition is a single, efficient sentence with the comparison action front-loaded and an example included. It avoids repetition or filler, though it could be slightly more explicit about ranking behavior without becoming verbose.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only comparison tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it says what is compared and that results are ordered. However, it omits what 'flujo de liquidez' means in this context or what the ordered output contains, leaving the agent to infer the return semantics.

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 the single parameter is already documented as a Yahoo Finance symbol list. The description adds a concrete example list, but does not add syntax or format 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Compara el flujo de liquidez entre varios símbolos ... y los ordena.' It also clarifies the multi-symbol scope, which distinguishes it from single-symbol or overview siblings, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_liquidity_overview or get_capital_flows. The multi-symbol comparison scope implies a use case, but no when-not conditions or routing advice are provided.

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