Cash Flow

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds the return format (items array with specific fields), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions. The description complements the safety profile with output structure, earning a 4.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and scope, second gives return fields and parameter format. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy. Front-loaded with key information.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description fully explains the tool's output and parameter constraints. It does not discuss pagination or limits, but annotations (openWorldHint) imply no guarantees of completeness. For a straightforward read-only list, it is sufficiently complete.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, and the tool description restates the RFC3339 format requirement. No additional semantics beyond schema; baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal value over the 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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'cash flow records', lists transaction types (deposits, withdrawals, dividends), and specifies the return structure with fields like transaction_type, amount, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like capital_flow by focusing on transaction-level records.

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?

Description implies usage with time range parameters (start_at/end_at in RFC3339) but does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or state when not to use. It provides clear context for parameters but lacks usage guidance relative to siblings.

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