stock_financial_cash_new_ths

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and does not disclose any other behavioral traits like data freshness, network dependencies, or limitations. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact and follows a clear docstring structure with param/return sections. The inclusion of a sample URL is slightly extraneous but does not significantly detract from clarity. It is front-loaded with the tool title.

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 no output schema, so the description should describe what the resulting DataFrame contains. It only names the return type and title, without listing columns, examples, or data granularity. It also fails to differentiate from the nearly identical sibling stock_financial_cash_ths, making it adequate but incomplete for an agent to fully predict the 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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description documents both parameters: symbol as stock code and indicator with an explicit choice list including defaults. This adds meaningful semantic value beyond the schema, though it could provide further explanation of each indicator option.

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 identifies the tool as '同花顺-财务指标-现金流量表' (THS financial indicator cash flow statement) and states it returns a pandas DataFrame of that statement, clearly indicating the resource. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' and does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'stock_financial_cash_ths'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stock_financial_cash_ths, stock_financial_abstract_ths, or other financial statement tools. The description only lists parameter choices and does not mention exclusions or preferred contexts.

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