get_historical_fund_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the return format (Markdown table) and data types but does not mention side effects, rate limits, auth requirements, or data freshness. It is adequate but lacks depth such as data source or update frequency.

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 with a clear main description, Args, Returns, and Examples sections. It is concise, using only essential information without redundancy, and each sentence adds value.

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 data retrieval tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, the description covers input, output format, and examples. It lacks details on valid market codes, data history length, and error handling, but it is mostly sufficient for an 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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description's Args section explains both parameters: stock_code format (e.g., 688041.SH) and limit's default and meaning (number of records). This adds significant value beyond the raw schema, though it could specify constraints like valid markets for stock_code.

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 retrieves historical fund flow data for a specified stock, including types of funds (main, retail, medium). It uses specific verb '获取' and resource '指定股票最近N个交易日的资金流向数据', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_plate_fund_flow which is for sector data.

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 usage for stock-level historical fund flow but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_plate_fund_flow. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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