North Flow Tracker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the general outputs (inflow trend and top holdings) but omits data source, read-only behavior, freshness, pagination, authentication needs, or any side effects. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the behavior is only minimally described.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler: it names the domain and the two main output facets compactly. It is appropriately short but slightly too terse to carry routing or behavioral context.

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 read-only tool with two optional, self-documenting parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core output expectations. However, with no annotations and several sibling flow/analysis tools, it leaves tool-selection guidance and behavioral caveats unaddressed, making it merely adequate rather than complete.

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 100% and both parameters already have clear defaults and Chinese descriptions, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It loosely maps days to the historical trend and top_n to the holdings list, but does not provide new parameter-level meaning.

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 states a clear action and resource: '北向资金追踪' (northbound capital tracking), and it lists two concrete outputs: recent net inflow trend and top N holdings. This is more specific than a tautology, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling sector_flow_tracker.

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 phrase '北向资金追踪' implies the tool should be used when monitoring northbound capital flows, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives such as sector_flow_tracker or margin_analysis. The usage context is only implied, not stated.

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