Historial de flujos de liquidez

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 beyond that: the historical depth available (monthly since 1993 vs weekly 10 years) and that accumulated flow is included — meaningful behavioral/horizon disclosure. It stops short of stating auth needs, rate limits, or empty-range behavior.

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?

Two dense but efficient sentences that front-load scope and period coverage, then enumerate the returned fields. No filler, though the enumeration of per-period metrics borders on output documentation that could be trimmed.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the per-period return fields (return %, volume USD, net flow, intensity) and the accumulated-flow aggregate. Combined with the temporal coverage note and readOnly/openWorld annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only missing details are error/empty behavior.

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 coverage is 75%, so most parameters are already documented. The description mirrors the 'group' enum values and explains that 'symbols' scopes to members of that group, which adds a little meaning, but says nothing extra about 'periods' or 'resolution' beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (money-flow history) and specifies the two axes of retrieval: group-level ('asset','region','sector','crypto') versus explicit symbols. It also states the temporal scope (monthly since 1993, weekly 10 years). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from ambiguous siblings like get_capital_flows or get_rotation_history, so an agent could still hesitate between them.

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 the description of what the tool returns over time, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative. The agent must infer that this is the historical-series counterpart to overview tools.

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