cash_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, error conditions, or what format the cash flow data returns. For a financial data tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 description is extremely concise at three words with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential action and resource.

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?

Given the complexity of financial data tools, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or any constraints. For a tool that likely provides structured financial statements, more context is needed for effective use.

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 0%, and the description mentions no parameters. The single parameter 'symbol' is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving its meaning (e.g., stock ticker format, required exchanges) unclear. The description doesn't compensate for the schema's lack of 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?

The description 'Fetch company cash flow' clearly states the action (fetch) and resource (company cash flow), but it's somewhat vague about what 'cash flow' specifically entails (e.g., statement type, period). It distinguishes from many siblings by focusing on cash flow, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar financial tools like 'balance_sheet' or 'income_statement' beyond the resource name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'balance_sheet', 'income_statement', and 'company_overview' that might overlap in financial data contexts, there's no indication of when cash flow data is specifically needed or what prerequisites might exist (e.g., symbol format).

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