get_market_fund_flow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns inflow/outflow trends for main forces and retail, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose data granularity, time period, or any potential limitations 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 a single sentence that efficiently states the purpose and output. Every part earns its place: '获取大盘资金流向（上证+深证综合）' specifies target and scope, '返回主力和散户的流入流出金额趋势' specifies return value. No filler or redundancy.

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 the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what data is returned and for which market. Annotations handle safety. It could mention time frame or real-time vs. historical nature, but for a parameterless market flow tool, the description is sufficiently 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100% vacuously. Per rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since none exist, and the input schema is empty.

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 verb '获取' (obtain) and the specific resource '大盘资金流向' (market capital flow) with explicit scope (Shanghai + Shenzhen composite). It also describes what is returned (trend of inflow/outflow amounts for main forces and retail investors), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_fund_flow which target individual stocks or sectors.

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 clear context: use for overall market capital flow. Though no exclusions or alternatives are explicitly named, the phrase '大盘' (whole market) implies when to choose this tool over sector/stock-specific fund flow tools. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the context is unambiguous.

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