Historial de rotación de liquidez

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and external-data scope. The description adds the analytic framing (flow intensity ranking per period) but says nothing about data sources, latency, or edge cases. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, no waste. The first sentence front-loads the output definition; the second gives purpose. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

A read-only analytic tool with four parameters and no output schema. The description explains the output concept but leaves parameter meanings and default behavior undocumented, and doesn't clarify return shape. Adequate minimum but with clear gaps given the 0% schema coverage.

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 0% – none of the four parameters (top, group, periods, resolution) have schema descriptions. The description mentions 'grupo' and 'periodo' conceptually but doesn't explain defaults (top=3, periods=12, resolution=monthly), enum values, or max bounds. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 analytical output: per period, which instruments in a group gained or lost money by flow intensity. Clear verb-resource-analytic intent, though it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like get_flow_history or get_capital_flows.

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?

Implies usage ('Sirve para ver cómo ha rotado la liquidez...') but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. The agent must infer that this is for rotation across group dimensions over time, not for point-in-time flows. No exclusions or alternative routing provided.

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