Flujos de capital por grupo

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the meaningful output-ordering behavior ('Ordenado de mayor entrada a mayor salida'), which is genuinely useful and not derivable from the schema or annotations.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the grouping semantics. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded, though it is somewhat list-heavy.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description fills that gap by explaining the sort order of the returned ranking. For a single-parameter read tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, this is essentially complete; only the alternative-tool routing is missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by decoding each enum value: 'asset' = clases de activo, 'region' = países, 'sector' = sectores EE.UU., 'macro' = índices y divisas. This disambiguates the enums beyond the bare schema list.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it produces a 'ranking de flujo de liquidez' scoped 'dentro de un grupo'. The grouping concept is clear and unique, though the description never names or contrasts the obvious siblings (compare_flows, get_liquidity_overview, get_crypto_liquidity).

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?

Usage is implied by 'Ranking de flujo de liquidez dentro de un grupo' — the agent can infer this returns a ranked list per grouping. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives like compare_flows or get_flow_history.

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