get_cash_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It indicates a read operation (get) but does not elaborate on potential side effects, error conditions, or result format beyond the concept.

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?

Three concise sentences with no wasted words. States the core function, clarifies the definition, and notes gating and API key requirements.

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 no output schema, the description could explain what the return looks like (e.g., a number, object). However, for a parameterless cash flow tool, the definition is mostly complete, leaving only minor ambiguity about output format.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the description is not required to add parameter details. However, it adds value by explaining what cash flow means (money in vs money out from BUY/SELL transactions).

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 tool as getting the user's cash flow and explains it as money in vs money out from BUY/SELL transactions. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_cost_basis or get_portfolio_summary, though the concept is distinct.

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 mentions that it is premium-gated and requires IWMM_API_KEY, providing important usage context. However, it does not give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare to alternatives.

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