consultar_fluxo_caixa

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior—comparing forecast vs actual across financial categories—but doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or return format. The read-only nature is implied by the name and 'consulta', but not explicitly stated.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. No fluff or repetition.

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 simple query tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate: it explains what the tool does and the comparison logic. However, it could be more complete by noting what data is included (e.g., all categories) or that it is read-only, especially given the absence of annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It references 'month' but doesn't explicitly explain the ano (year) and mes (month) parameters beyond their names, which are somewhat self-explanatory. The description adds context that the tool is for monthly cash flow, but not the expected formats/ranges.

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 a specific action (query monthly cash flow) and resource (fluxo de caixa), with detail on comparing forecast vs actual by category. This distinguishes it from sibling consult tools like consultar_conta_receber or consultar_extrato_bancario.

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 when to use the tool (when you need a monthly cash flow comparison) but provides no explicit references to alternatives or exclusions among the many sibling tools. It gives clear context but no when-not-to-use guidance.

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