get_qhkc_index_trend

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond the available indices and sample output; it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication, or side effects. It doesn't contradict annotations, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with purpose and valid names, but then includes a large 30-row sample DataFrame and docstring boilerplate, making it unnecessarily long. The 'param name: None' line is confusing and adds noise.

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 simple tool, the description provides enough to call it with the default url and a chosen name from the list, and the sample shows the expected output. However, it doesn't explain the meaning of 'open_order', whether the data is historical or current, or how the 'trend' in the name relates to the snapshot output.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds value by listing the valid values for 'name', but 'url' is only described as '网址' (web address), adding no semantics. Defaults are provided in schema. Partial compensation for missing schema descriptions.

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 it retrieves QHKC index data for '大资金动向' (big capital flow) and enumerates the valid index names. It distinguishes itself from generic index tools by its specific focus on capital movement, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The description implies usage by listing the available index names, but doesn't explain when to choose this tool over sibling tools like get_qhkc_index_profit_loss or get_qhkc_fund_position.

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