cash_flow_statement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Generate cash flow statement') without any information on permissions required, data sources, output format, error handling, or rate limits. For a tool that likely involves financial data processing, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 with a single sentence ('Generate cash flow statement for specified period'). It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to the tool's purpose, earning its place efficiently.

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 reporting tools, no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter semantics coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the cash flow statement includes (e.g., operating, investing, financing activities), how results are returned, or any prerequisites. For a tool in a server with many analytics siblings, more context is needed to guide 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?

The input schema has 2 parameters (startDate and endDate) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for these parameters. The description adds minimal value by implying a 'specified period' but doesn't explain what the period represents (e.g., fiscal year, quarter), date format expectations, or validation rules. It partially compensates but leaves key semantics unclear.

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 the tool's purpose ('Generate cash flow statement') and specifies the resource ('for specified period'), which is clear but somewhat vague. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'cash_flow_forecast' or 'cash_flow_at_risk', which also deal with cash flow analysis. The description is functional but lacks specificity about what makes this tool unique.

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 many sibling tools related to cash flow (e.g., 'cash_flow_forecast', 'cash_flow_at_risk'), there's no indication of whether this is for historical reporting, forecasting, or risk analysis. The phrase 'for specified period' implies a time-based query but doesn't clarify context or exclusions.

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