Get AI Cash Position

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing that the endpoint always returns HTTP 200, that `available:false` with reason `snapshot_not_generated` means 'not analysed yet' rather than no cash data or outage, and that only `scenarios.closed` is populated. It also calls out the 403 FEATURE_NOT_AVAILABLE tier behavior. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context that an agent needs to interpret responses correctly. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=true.

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 opening sentence front-loads the core purpose, and every subsequent sentence carries a distinct operational warning or model-scope caveat. It is longer than average, but the length is justified by the unusual always-200 and partial-coverage semantics.

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?

For a tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description still covers the non-obvious pieces the schema cannot convey: response meaning, failure modes, scenario-envelope limitations, and licensing behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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 schema already fully documents the only parameter (`ticker`, 100% coverage), so the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not need to add parameter semantics and adds none that are material.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('Signal8 cash position model'), and enumerates its components (anchor cash, monthly burn, raises, runway months), so an agent can immediately tell what data it returns. The 'current cash situation / runway / capital raise activity' phrasing distinguishes it from cash-history and runway-calendar siblings, even without naming them.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger condition: 'Use when analyzing a company's current cash situation, runway, or capital raise activity.' It does not name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use guidance beyond the coverage caveat, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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