A股板块资金流

Does 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 discloses only the data scope (A-share, Shanghai/Shenzhen) and nothing else: not the ranking behavior implied by the name, not the output format, not data recency or read-only characteristics. The most distinctive behavioral trait of this tool — that it ranks sector fund flows — is absent from the description.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient and to the point, though slightly under-specified — that deficiency is better attributed to completeness than to structure.

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 and no annotations, the description must supply return-value and safety context, but it does neither. The agent cannot tell what the result will look like (a ranked list? a table?) or that the tool covers three flow categories rather than one. The simple 2-parameter schema is fully covered, but the surrounding context an agent needs to confidently invoke this tool is missing.

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%: both cate and days parameters are documented with their supported value sets in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning — it doesn't mention cate or days at all. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('获取...行业资金流向数据'), so the core purpose is understandable. However, it underrepresents the tool's actual scope: the cate schema shows support for 概念资金流 and 地域资金流 in addition to 行业资金流, yet the description mentions only the industry category. It also omits the 'rank' behavior implied by the tool name and provides no differentiation from the many capital-flow siblings (industry_capital_flow, capital_flows_snapshot, sector_rotation).

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 alternatives. With siblings like industry_capital_flow, capital_flows_snapshot, sector_rotation, and northbound_funds covering similar territory, the agent is left to guess which tool to invoke. No exclusions, no preferred-use context, and no named alternatives are provided.

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