Sector Flow Tracker

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only restates the basic purpose. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what kind of output is produced, how historical data is sourced or limited, or any other operational behavior. This leaves the agent with no information beyond the tool's name.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose without wasted words. It is concise rather than under-specified to the point of being a tautology, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. For a simple two-parameter tool, this is mostly adequate. However, the lack of usage guidance and behavioral disclosure means an agent cannot fully judge when to choose this tool over sector_analyzer or north_flow_tracker.

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%, with both parameters already documented: 'sector' is explained with examples and 'days' has a default value. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 '行业板块历史走势追踪' clearly identifies the resource (industry sectors) and the operation (tracking historical trends). It clarifies that 'flow' here means price/trend movement rather than capital flow, which distinguishes it from tools like north_flow_tracker. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sector_analyzer, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sector_analyzer or north_flow_tracker. The agent is left to infer use cases from the name alone. No exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons are given.

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