get_capital_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key constraint: the API returns at most about 20 trading days, which is useful. However, it does not mention any side effects, required permissions, or rate limits. For a read-only data tool, this is acceptable but thin; more context about the data's reliability or update frequency would help.

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 minimal and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clean parameter list. There is no fluff, and every sentence adds value. It is immediately clear what the tool does and what arguments it needs.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, one required), the description covers the essentials: purpose, parameter meanings, and a key limit. The presence of an output schema means return values do not need to be spelled out. The only gap is the lack of usage guidance, which is already low on the usage dimension. Overall, it is nearly complete for a straightforward data-retrieval tool.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must explain the parameters. It does: symbol is the stock code, days is the lookback period, and it adds the critical bound that the API provides at most ~20 trading days. This goes well beyond what the schema offers, giving agents actionable semantics.

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 returns capital flow data: net inflow trend and order size breakdown for the day. The verb 'get' plus the resource 'capital flow' is specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like get_quote (price) and get_kline (price history) by focusing on money flow. A single, concise line conveys the purpose unambiguously.

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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like get_quote or get_kline, nor does it specify scenarios where capital flow data is appropriate. The usage context is only implied from the name and description, not stated.

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