get_etf_flows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the specific timeframes returned (latest day, trailing 5/30-day) and the data type (net flows). It does not describe exact return format or edge cases, but for a simple parameterless getter this is adequate.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the key resource and scope. It includes only the essential information, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and its scope. It specifies the data source (Bitcoin ETF flows) and timeframes, making it complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. The description naturally adds no parameter details, but the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, as there is no additional meaning needed.

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 identifies the resource (Spot Bitcoin ETF net flows) and the scope (latest day + trailing 5/30-day). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that cover different signal types, though it lacks an explicit verb, relying on the tool name 'get' to imply the action.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'institutional demand', suggesting this tool is suitable when Bitcoin ETF flow data is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would strengthen guidance.

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