get_stock_fund_flow_history

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the returned data structure (main force, super-large/large/medium/small order amounts and net values) and supported periods. It does not contradict annotations and adds value beyond them.

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 front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds key details (periods, data categories) without any filler or repetition. Every clause earns its place, making it highly concise while remaining informative.

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 read-only data retrieval tool with a two-parameter schema, the description adequately explains the purpose, period choices, and return metrics. It does not detail return format or data time ranges, but with no output schema and clear annotations, the description covers what is needed for selection and invocation. Slightly more context on data interpretation could elevate it, but it is not incomplete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter definitions: symbol format ('600519' or 'sh600519') and period enum with default value. The tool description merely restates these details and adds no further semantic meaning. Since the schema carries the full burden, the baseline of 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 a specific verb ('获取' - get), specifies the resource ('个股资金流向历史数据' - individual stock capital flow historical data), and lists the returned categories (主力, 超大单, etc.) and time periods. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_fund_flow (current fund flow) and get_sector_fund_flow_history (sector-level history).

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 usage for querying historical fund flow for a single stock, with daily/weekly/monthly options. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it lacks the explicit when-to-use-vs-sibling guidance that would earn a 5. The context is clear but not comparative.

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