Get Cash Flow Statement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no additional safety context. It also does not disclose behavioral traits such as response format, pagination, default period behavior, or how the data is ordered. The listed data components add content context but no behavioral nuance.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and uses a concise list of key data points. Every word contributes useful information, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify what the return data looks like. It partially does by naming common cash flow components, but it does not mention that multiple periods can be returned, how date sorting works, or any quirks. For a tool with 8 parameters, the description is minimal but not dangerously vague, especially since the schema covers input semantics.

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 all 8 parameters explicitly documented, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the data components mentioned in the description relate to response fields, not input parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves cash flow data and enumerates specific data points (operating, investing, financing cash flows, CapEx, free cash flow, dividends), making its function unmistakable and distinct from sibling financial statement tools.

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, no mention of typical use cases, and no exclusions or comparisons with other tools like get_income_statement. It merely states what it does, not when it should be selected.

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