stock_fund_flow_individual

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds the data source URL and parameter choices but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as default behavior, pagination, or rate limits, missing the opportunity to enrich beyond 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 but includes a long URL with a tracking refCountId that adds noise. The structure follows a docstring pattern with title, URL, param, and return sections, which is generally clear but not as polished or front-loaded as it could be.

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 description provides the parameter choices and return type but lacks an output schema or details about the DataFrame columns. For a simple one-param tool, it is mostly sufficient, but it does not specify what data fields are returned or whether it covers all A-shares, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 only defines a string with a default, but the description enriches it by listing the exact allowed choices for symbol: {‘即时’, '3日排行', '5日排行', '10日排行', '20日排行'}. This is critical for correct invocation since the schema lacks an enum or descriptions, fully compensating for the low 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 identifies the resource as '同花顺-数据中心-资金流向-个股资金流' (individual stock fund flow) and states the return type as a pandas DataFrame, making it clear the tool retrieves individual stock fund flow data. It differentiates from sibling tools like stock_fund_flow_concept and stock_fund_flow_industry by specifying '个股' (individual stocks). However, there is no explicit verb like 'get' or 'query', which slightly weakens purpose clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling fund-flow tools (e.g., stock_sector_fund_flow_rank, stock_market_fund_flow). It only lists the symbol parameter choices, implying usage for ranking periods but no exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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