fluxo_caixa

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the aggregation granularity (daily, by payment day) and the content categories included, but doesn't mention response format, timezone assumptions, whether it spans a range endpoint-inclusive, or any rate/volume caveats. Adequate but not richly transparent for an unannotated financial reporting tool.

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?

Single compact sentence listing all content dimensions (entradas, saidas, taxas, antecipacoes, liquido) and grouping rule (por dia de pagamento). Zero waste and efficient for what it conveys. Not quite 5 since ordering/clarity of the many content items could be slightly improved with structural formatting.

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 and no annotations, the description must fully explain behavior and return semantics. It lists the financial components and grouping but doesn't describe the output structure, totals behavior, or edge cases (e.g., days with no activity). For a financial reporting tool among many similar siblings, this is adequate but leaves room for more.

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 100% and both parameters (inicio, fim, dates in YYYY-MM-DD) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds the date-range framing context ('por dia de pagamento') which clarifies how the range is used. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter 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 states a specific resource (daily cash flow) with clear content scope: gross inflows, outflows (reversals/chargebacks), fees, advances, and net, grouped by payment day. It's clear and differentiates from siblings like recebiveis_periodo (period receivables) by focusing on daily cash flow aggregation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so not a full 5.

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 use case is implied via 'fluxo de caixa diario... agrupado por dia de pagamento' — it's clear this is for daily cash flow reporting. But there are no explicit when/when-not exclusions or alternative-tool guidance, despite a rich set of financial siblings (recebiveis_futuros, resumo_financeiro) that could cause selection ambiguity.

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