get_flow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the batch usage warning, which is behavioral guidance, but does not disclose other traits like return format or pagination. Given the annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate—it adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The warning about batch usage is prominent and clear, followed by usage examples and argument definitions. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no wasted words.

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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, when to use it (including the batch alternative), and parameter semantics. It also includes example queries that ground the tool's context. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does explain code as a 6-digit stock code and days as the number of days with a default of 20. This compensates for the missing schema descriptions, though it could be more detailed about the exact behavior of days.

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's purpose: retrieving investor supply-demand trends (net buy/sell by individual/institution/foreigner). It provides concrete example queries and explicitly differentiates from the sibling get_flow_batch by stating when not to use this tool. This distinguishes it effectively from similar tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool versus get_flow_batch ('If there are 2 or more stocks, don't repeat this tool; use get_flow_batch instead'). Also gives example natural language queries that should trigger this tool, making usage context clear.

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