industry_capital_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states the topic and source. It does not explain what kind of flow is ranked, time horizon, update frequency, or limitations such as scope or data granularity.

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 extremely concise and contains no wasted words, but it is so sparse that it reads more like a label than an explanatory tool definition. Conciseness is achieved, but at the expense of necessary context.

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?

Although the tool has an output schema and only two optional parameters, the description is too skeletal for confident selection among many closely related capital-flow and ranking tools. It omits selection criteria and behavioral context, leaving the agent to rely on the name and schema alone.

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 only 50% because limit has no description, and the tool description adds nothing about either parameter. The industry parameter is documented in the schema, but the description fails to compensate for the missing limit semantics or clarify how the parameters interact.

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 identifies the resource as industry capital-flow rankings and adds the data source (同花顺/TongHuaShun). It lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from similar sibling tools, so it is clear but not fully distinct.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like stock_sector_fund_flow_rank, capital_flows_snapshot, or capital_tracking. The only hint of usage comes from the schema's industry parameter description, not from the tool description itself.

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