capital_trackingTrack capital flows and institutional activity for a stock. Access capital flow data, research records, and holdings to understand external institutional sentiment.
获取个股资金流向、机构调研记录、机构持仓明细等外部机构反响与资金流向综合数据
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market | No | 市场: sh=沪, sz=深, bj=京 | sh |
| symbol | Yes | 6位股票代码，如 000425 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists data categories and says '获取' (fetch), but does not mention data recency, update frequency, source limitations, or any other behavioral characteristics beyond the basic read operation.
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 with the key action and data categories front-loaded. The trailing phrase '外部机构反响与资金流向综合数据' is somewhat redundant with the enumerated items, but the overall length is appropriate and efficient.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. However, there are no annotations and the description lacks context on data scope, source, or update behavior, leaving noticeable gaps for an agent deciding whether this tool fits the task.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on the market values or symbol format, which are already documented in the input schema.
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 a specific verb ('获取' / obtain) and a specific resource: individual stock capital flows, institutional research records, and institutional holdings details. It is easy to tell it focuses on per-stock data versus sector or market-level siblings, though it does not explicitly name any sibling tool.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many closely related capital-flow siblings such as capital_flow_monitor, stock_sector_fund_flow_rank, or industry_capital_flow. No exclusions, alternatives, or selection conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.