get_money_flow

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 only conveys that the tool returns a money-flow summary, without mentioning time period, data scope, return shape, authentication, or any other behavioral details. This is thin for a tool with no structured metadata.

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, compact sentence with no filler, and the key retail/institutional distinction is placed prominently. It is concise, though it could add a bit more structure around expected output or time period.

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 one-parameter read-style tool, the description is adequate but not complete. There is no output schema, and the description does not specify what fields or time range the summary covers, so an agent may call the tool correctly but be unsure how to interpret the result.

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?

The description names insCode as the instrument identifier for the money-flow summary, reinforcing the sole required parameter. However, schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the insCode format or how to obtain it, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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 resource: a money-flow summary for an instrument, split by retail/institutional categories. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_quote or get_order_book. It lacks an explicit verb, but the tool name 'get_' supplies the retrieval action.

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 when to use the tool: when you need retail/institutional money-flow data for an instrument identified by insCode. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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