get_cash_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the data source ('from the configured Flex query') and prerequisites, which are critical for correct invocation. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or handles errors gracefully.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence summarizes the tool's purpose, and the second adds a crucial prerequisite. It is concise, though it could front-load the prerequisite for quicker parsing.

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 three parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It mentions the data source and prerequisites but does not clarify pagination behavior (despite max_rows), default behavior for days=0, or output format (though an output schema exists). The reference to README is insufficient.

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 low (33%), so the description should compensate. It lists cash activity types that map to type_filter, but does not explain days or max_rows beyond what the schema provides. The description adds minimal useful parameter context.

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 clearly states the tool fetches 'Historical cash activity' and lists examples (dividends, interest, deposits/withdrawals, fees), distinguishing it from siblings like get_executions or get_trade_history. However, the verb 'get' is only implied by the name, not explicitly stated in the description.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions prerequisites ('Needs IBKR_FLEX_QUERY_ID + token') but does not compare with sibling tools or specify conditions for use.

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