北向资金近况

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-only retrieval operation and a fixed time window, but it does not mention return structure, units, data source, or any caveats about trading-day handling. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 no filler. It front-loads the action and data scope, and for a zero-parameter tool this length is entirely appropriate.

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 and empty input schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description could have added value by briefly noting the returned data shape or that the result is a time series of daily records. This is a modest gap rather than a critical one.

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 accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description naturally satisfies the parameter dimension because no input ambiguity exists. An empty schema means the agent only needs to know that the tool takes no arguments, which is fully evident.

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') and resource ('北向资金近10个交易日数据'), making it obvious that this tool returns the last 10 trading days of northbound capital flow data. The resource name is distinctive enough to differentiate it from sibling tools like fund_nav or margin_balance, though it does not explicitly reference any alternative 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 implies the tool should be used when an agent needs northbound fund data for the most recent 10 trading days. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tool to choose for other northbound-capital-related queries, such as longer histories or aggregate market overviews.

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