stock_fund_flow_concept

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds minimal behavioral context: it lists the period choices (即时, 3日排行, etc.) and the source URL, but does not disclose any limitations, data update frequency, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations capture.

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 short but structured as a raw docstring with a long and noisy URL containing tracking parameters. The title and return type are clearly present, but the format is not optimized for agent consumption and the URL is likely extraneous.

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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema) and the description covers the basic purpose and parameter choices. However, it does not explain the structure of the returned DataFrame or how this tool fits with similar fund-flow tools, leaving some ambiguity for an agent in a large sibling toolset.

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 schema provides only a generic string parameter with a default. The description compensates for the 0% schema coverage by enumerating the valid choices (即时, 3日排行, 5日排行, 10日排行, 20日排行), giving the agent the essential semantics needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 identifies the tool as a THS (同花顺) data center tool for concept fund flow (概念资金流), specifying the resource and the return type (pandas.DataFrame). It distinguishes from siblings like stock_fund_flow_individual and stock_fund_flow_industry by explicitly naming 'concept' as the scope, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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 guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name and title imply usage for concept-level fund flow, but there are no stated exclusions or comparisons to the many sibling fund-flow tools.

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