stock_fund_flow_industry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety expectations. The description adds the data source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame), but does not disclose additional behaviors like rate limits, data granularity, or the meaning of the ranking periods beyond the literal values.

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 compact docstring with a clear title, source URL, parameter documentation, and return type. It avoids unnecessary prose but is slightly dense due to the docstring format.

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 single-parameter tool, the description covers source, valid inputs, and return type, which is sufficient for basic usage. It lacks detail on output columns or the precise meaning of each ranking period, but these are not essential giventhe simplicity of the tool.

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 is minimal (type string, default '即时'), but the description provides the full enumerated choices: {'即时', '3日排行', '5日排行', '10日排行', '20日排行'}. This is critical for correct invocation and far exceeds the schema's information. The return type is also clearly documented.

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 specific data resource (同花顺-数据中心-资金流向-行业资金流) and URL, making clear it provides industry-level fund flow data. It distinguishes from siblings like stock_fund_flow_concept or stock_fund_flow_individual by specifying '行业' (industry). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'list', relying on implication.

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_sector_fund_flow_rank or stock_sector_fund_flow_summary. The description only states what the tool is without contextual usage advice.

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