get_stock_flow_recent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get recent flows' but doesn't specify what 'flows' entail (e.g., trading volume, options flow, dark pool activity), the time frame for 'recent', or any operational traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in a tool definition.

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 complexity of financial data tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'flows' are, the return format, or how it differs from siblings, leaving the agent with incomplete context to use the tool effectively in a server with many similar tools.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'ticker' parameter clearly documented as 'Stock ticker symbol'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the ticker is used to retrieve flows, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'recent flows for a ticker', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stock_flow_alerts' or 'get_darkpool_recent', which might also involve flow data, leaving some ambiguity about what specific type of flows it retrieves.

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. With many sibling tools related to stock data (e.g., 'get_stock_flow_alerts', 'get_darkpool_recent'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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