get_fund_flow_rank

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the safe-read nature is already covered by annotations. The description adds that stock rankings return '全市场主力净流入 TOP' and sector rankings return industry/concept/region lists, which gives some context about the data scope. However, it does not disclose ordering behavior, result limits, or any other nuances beyond the annotations.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then detailing the two modes. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 there is no output schema, the description should clarify the return structure more thoroughly. It says stock rankings return TOP main net inflows and sector rankings return ranking lists, but it does not specify whether the result includes stock codes, names, values, or the number of results. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent expecting to parse the response.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (scope, indicator, sectorType) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning, mostly confirming the role of scope and the sector types, which are already enumerated in the schema. It does not provide additional parameter-level context beyond what the schema offers.

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 function: '获取资金流排名' (get fund flow ranking) and distinguishes between stock and sector rankings via the 'scope' parameter. It also describes what each mode returns (full-market top main net inflows for stocks; industry/concept/region rankings for sectors), differentiating it from sibling tools like get_fund_flow and get_market_fund_flow.

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 usage by explaining what the tool does, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_stock_fund_flow_history or get_sector_fund_flow_history. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer that this is for ranking rather than detailed historical flow analysis.

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