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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it retrieves data, but does not mention the trading-day constraint, return format, or any limitations. The schema contains details about parameter values, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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 concise sentence that states the purpose without redundancy. It earns its place but lacks some useful context, so it is efficient but not exceptionally structured.

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?

The tool has only two parameters and no output schema, but the description is minimal. It does not explain the return data, the ranking aspect implied by the tool name, or the availability of concept/regional categories, leaving the description incomplete for a full understanding.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (cate and days) with allowed values, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter information, so a baseline score 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 the specific verb '获取' and identifies the resource as '中国A股市场的行业资金流向数据', making the core function clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools that also fetch stock-related data, and the description mentions only '行业' (industry) while the schema supports '概念' and '地域' as well.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools. The description only states the function without any contextual usage direction.

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