get_plate_fund_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (Markdown table) and parameter effects, but does not mention side effects (e.g., mutability), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. Basic behavioral traits are covered, but depth is lacking.

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 Args, Returns, and Examples sections. It is moderately concise but includes slight redundancy (Chinese/English mix). Each section serves a purpose, though some lines could be trimmed. Overall efficient.

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 has only two optional parameters and an output schema (handling return format), the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, parameters, return format, and examples. Missing: error handling, possible limitations (e.g., requires market open), but acceptable for this 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters: plate_type values (1,2,3) and page_size default (10). Examples illustrate usage with different parameter combinations. This adds substantial value beyond the schema's bare defaults.

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 retrieves today's ranking of plate fund flow, covering industry, concept, region sectors. It uses a specific verb (获取/get) and resource (板块资金流排行), and the examples further clarify usage. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_historical_fund_flow or get_current_plate_changes.

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 the tool is for today's fund flow ranking (今日排行) but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., get_historical_fund_flow for history). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned. The examples show typical calls but no guidance on selection.

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