get_fund_flows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavioral context: for certain fund categories the call will yield no flow series, which warns the agent to expect empty/partial results rather than assume failure. It says nothing about units, currency, or ordering of the flow values.

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 short lines with the core payload stated first and the eligibility caveat following, so nothing is buried. The dense domain abbreviations (FIF, FAPI, FII, FIDC, FIAGRO, Informe Diário) pack a lot into little space and are left unexplained, which slightly taxes comprehension.

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?

An output schema exists and all three parameters are documented, so the description only needs to add the non-structural pieces, which it does via the fund-type eligibility rule. What remains missing is where to go for flows of the excluded fund types and any note on units or period granularity of the returned series.

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%, with fund, first_period and last_period each documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no further meaning about period format, defaults, or how partial fund names are matched beyond what the schema already states.

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 names the concrete resource (subscriptions, redemptions, net flow) and scopes it to a single FI fund on a monthly basis, so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_fund_nav or get_fund_portfolio, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 second and third sentences give an explicit applicability rule: only FIF/FAPI publish a daily subscription/redemption series (Informe Diário), while FII, FIDC and FIAGRO have no flow series in the monthly report. That is strong when-not-to-use guidance, but it never names the alternative tool an agent should call for those fund types, so routing is still partly inferred.

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