trading_income

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral aspects. It mentions filtering by type but does not explain output format, pagination, authentication requirements, or whether it returns historical or pending data. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Description is short (two sentences) with no redundant information. It front-loads the purpose and then lists filters. Efficient for its length.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description should provide more context about the returned data, pagination with limit, and when to use this vs. other trading tools. It lacks completeness for an agent to fully utilize the tool correctly.

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 descriptions cover symbol and limit (67% coverage). Description adds some value by listing income type enum values, though it misses WELCOME_BONUS. The meaning of each type is not explained beyond translation. Overall marginal improvement over schema.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'get' and resource 'capital flow (income history)', and lists supported filter types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like trading_balance or trading_trades, though it could explicitly contrast with 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no explicit 'when-not' or mention of related tools like trading_commission or trading_trades. The description only states what it does, not the context of use.

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