sector_fund_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (涨跌幅、主力净流入、领涨股), but does not mention side effects, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. It is adequate but not rich.

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 very concise: two sentences conveying purpose, kind options, and return fields. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with both languages.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and key return fields. It could mention the order of ranking or data format, but it is reasonably complete for its complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'kind' parameter with Chinese/English context and the two enum values, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not discuss the 'limit' parameter, so it is not fully compensatory.

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 it is for sector fund flow ranking, specifies the two kinds (industry/concept), and lists the returned fields (change percentage, main net inflow, leading stock). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_kline or main_fund_rank which are for individual stocks or different rankings.

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 implies it is for sector-level flow ranking, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus similar tools like main_fund_rank. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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