get_cash_flow

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Get company cash flow statement data,' without disclosing traits like data coverage (e.g., periods included), rate limits, or response size. The existence of an output schema partially mitigates this, but the description itself is insufficient.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise. However, it could afford a bit more detail without becoming verbose, so a score of 4 reflects efficient but slightly under-informative structure.

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 presence of an output schema, the return values are covered, but the description lacks context about the typical components of a cash flow statement (e.g., operating, investing, financing activities). For a data retrieval tool among similar siblings, this is insufficient for complete understanding.

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%, so each parameter (symbol, source, recent_n) has a description in the schema. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 'Get company cash flow statement data,' specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'cash flow statement.' It differentiates from sibling tools like get_balance_sheet and get_income_statement by the financial statement type, though it doesn't elaborate on the data content.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_income_statement or get_balance_sheet. The description lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no decision support.

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