FinanceMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what data is retrieved but doesn't mention critical behavioral aspects like whether this is real-time or historical data, update frequency, rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness. For a financial data tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient Chinese sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and the specific data elements included (主力资金、超大单、大单、中单、小单的净流入净额和净占比数据). Every word contributes to understanding what the tool provides, with zero wasted text.

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?

For a financial data retrieval tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what data is retrieved but doesn't address important contextual aspects like data format, time periods covered, or limitations. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally mention something about return structure, but it doesn't.

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 schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions '个股和大盘' which aligns with the ts_code parameter's optional nature, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: '获取个股和大盘资金流向数据' (get stock and market capital flow data). It specifies the resource (capital flow data) and scope (individual stocks and overall market), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'stock_data' or 'index_data' which might have overlapping financial data domains.

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 usage context by mentioning '个股和大盘' (individual stocks and overall market), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stock_data' or 'index_data'. The parameter description for 'ts_code' hints at usage (leave blank for market data), but this is in the schema, not 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.