get_money_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the output type (nodes and index-based links) and that it builds chart data. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or idempotent, nor does it disclose any side effects or permissions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a structured args list. Every sentence adds value—purpose, output, and parameter guidance. No unnecessary words.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return fields. It explains the tool's purpose, output type, and parameters thoroughly. Could mention the visualization type more explicitly, but overall complete for its complexity.

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%, but the description fully explains both parameters: plan_id (mentioning list_plans for IDs) and month (with format example and default 'current'). This provides essential context beyond the schema's type and default.

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 'Build Sankey chart data showing money flow from income sources to spending category groups.' It uses a specific verb ('build'), identifies the resource ('Sankey chart data'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_money_movements_for_month' which likely returns raw movements.

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 use for visualization by stating 'suitable for Sankey/flow visualizations.' It provides guidance on how to obtain plan_id and month format, but does not explicitly contrast with similar tools or state when not to use.

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