get_sector_fund_flow_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the output includes trends of main force and super-large order inflows/outflows, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose data range, pagination, or any limitations, providing only moderate additional behavioral substance.

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, succinct sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every clause adds value (scope, periods, output content) with no redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return values more thoroughly. It vaguely mentions '趋势' but does not specify the historical data structure, time range, units, or how the period affects output. Adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps.

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 'period' and 'symbol' fully described including enum values and an example symbol format. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 clearly states it retrieves historical fund flow data for a single sector with daily/weekly/monthly periods. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_stock_fund_flow_history (stocks) and get_market_fund_flow (market) by specifying single-sector scope, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies the use case: when you need historical fund flow for a specific sector. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as using get_fund_flow for real-time data. Lacks explicit when-not guidance, so not a 5.

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