Get 10-Year Cash History

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly adds behavioral details: deduping by period with annual preference over quarterly, chronological sorting, and returns array of objects. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, both dense with information. The first sentence covers purpose, source, time range, and output format. The second adds dedup logic and availability. 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description adequately explains the return structure and behavior. It covers the 10-year quarterly range, dedup, sorting, and that it works broadly. No gaps.

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 single required parameter 'ticker' has 100% schema description coverage. The description adds value by explaining the tool 'works for any company with SEC filings', which expands on the parameter's meaning beyond the schema.

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 quarterly cash position history from SEC XBRL filings, specifying the 10-year limit and listing the output fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it works for any company with SEC filings, not feature-gated.

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 explicitly states the tool is for up to 10 years of cash history, implying it should be used when this specific historical data is needed. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the clarity on scope is sufficient.

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