stock_individual_fund_flow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, conveying the read-only and idempotent nature. The description adds context about the data source (Eastmoney Data Center) and the time scope ('近期', meaning recent), but does not disclose other behaviors such as rate limits, data truncation, or possible empty results. No contradiction with 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 follows a compact docstring format with title, URL, parameter definitions, and return type. It is reasonably concise, though the URL is arguably non-essential and the Chinese title is repeated. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 covers the core purpose, parameters, and return type (pandas.DataFrame), but the output details are vague — it does not specify the columns or interpretation of '资金流数据'. With no output schema, this leaves the agent guessing about the returned data structure. It is minimally complete for a simple query tool but lacks richer context.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters. It defines 'stock' as 股票代码 (stock code) and 'market' as the exchange with explicit allowed values: sh, sz, bj for Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Beijing. This goes well beyond the schema's type and default, giving the agent everything 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 retrieving individual stock fund flow data from Eastmoney's data center, with the title '东方财富网-数据中心-资金流向-个股' and the return statement '近期个股的资金流数据'. The resource and scope are specific, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' and does not differentiate from the nearby sibling 'stock_fund_flow_individual'.

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 alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another sibling tool would be more appropriate. The only hints are the URL and parameter definitions, which do not constitute usage guidance.

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