cash_flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return fields and parameter behavior, which is useful, but it does not mention data sources, freshness, limitations, or error scenarios. Since it is a read-only 'get' tool, the transparency is adequate but not rich, warranting a mid-range score.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, a brief list of return fields, an Args section, and examples. Every sentence is informative, no fluff, and the most critical info (purpose) is front-loaded. The format is easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple (2 parameters, output schema present), and the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, return fields, and usage examples. The presence of an output schema means return values are fully documented elsewhere, so the description need not elaborate further. It is complete for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does so excellently: symbol is clarified with ticker examples, and quarterly is explained with default behavior and a usage example. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema property titles.

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 states 'Get cash flow statement for a company' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like income_statement and balance_sheet by clearly naming the cash flow statement and listing the specific metrics returned (operating, investing, financing, FCF, capex).

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 clear context for when to use the tool, including examples and the annual/quarterly option. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose is self-evident among sibling financial statement tools, so it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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