Cash Flow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the time-range scoping and the exact returned fields, which is useful behavioral context. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or whether the response is limited to a certain number of records, but given the annotations cover the main behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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 and front-loads the core purpose and returned fields, then adds the time-format constraint. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff. It could be slightly more structured by separating the return format from the parameter note, but it is appropriately sized.

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?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, returned fields, and time-format requirement. It is missing details like pagination, ordering, or any limits on the returned records, which an agent might need for large date ranges. Given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but not 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents start_at and end_at as RFC3339 times. The description reinforces the time-range semantics by mentioning start_at/end_at in RFC3339, but it adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The _jq parameter is also fully documented in the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 retrieves cash flow records and enumerates the transaction types (deposits, withdrawals, dividends), which distinguishes it from generic account tools. It also lists the returned fields, making the resource and output explicit. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the field list and transaction-type scope are enough to differentiate it from related tools like deposits, withdrawals, and account_balance.

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 by specifying a time range (start_at/end_at in RFC3339) and the returned record types, which tells an agent when this tool is appropriate for querying cash flow history. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like deposits, withdrawals, or account_balance, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but the guidance is not explicit.

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