get_fund_flow

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers safety; the description adds what data is returned (main/retail inflows/outflows, net inflow ratio). It does not disclose data freshness, exact units, or edge-case behavior, but the added return detail is meaningful.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. Every part of the description adds informational value.

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 tool with one documented parameter, readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description adequately states the operation and return content. It could be slightly more explicit about being current (not historical) flow, but is otherwise sufficient.

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 schema covers 100% of parameter semantics with description and example for 'codes'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb '获取' (get) and resource '股票资金流向' (stock capital flow), and clearly states that it returns main/retail inflow/outflow amounts and net inflow ratio. This distinguishes it from market-level or ranking siblings like get_market_fund_flow and get_fund_flow_rank, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 usage context is implied: call this when you need fund flow for specific stock codes. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, and it doesn't differentiate from get_stock_fund_flow_history or other fund-flow siblings.

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