get_cash_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. The description only implies a read-only operation ('Get') but discloses nothing about aggregation behavior, data inclusion rules, permissions, auth requirements, or return format. It adds little beyond what the tool name suggests.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is somewhat under-specified given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 moderate complexity (4 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several related siblings), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'cash flow analysis' means, what the output looks like, or how this tool differs from get_rolling_cash_flow and forecast_cash_flow. The agent would need to inspect sibling tools or the schema to fully understand its role.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; for example, it does not explain how 'frequency' interacts with the date range or what 'cash flow analysis' entails. The schema itself provides adequate parameter semantics.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('cash flow analysis'), with a temporal scope ('for a period'). This is a clear verb+resource pairing. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_rolling_cash_flow or forecast_cash_flow, as 'cash flow analysis' is generic.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools like get_rolling_cash_flow or forecast_cash_flow would be more appropriate. The usage context is only implied by the name and the 'for a period' phrase.

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