stock_main_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, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns a pandas.DataFrame and lists allowed symbol values, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether data is real-time, whether it reflects a specific date, or potential rate limits. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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, containing only the title, URL, parameter choices, and return type. Each line conveys necessary information without fluff. However, the structure is fragmentary (a mixture of title, URL, and docstring-like param/return) and could be more readable with a prose summary, but it is not overly verbose.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns. It says 'return: 主力净流入排名' and 'rtype: pandas.DataFrame', but does not specify the columns, the time period (e.g., daily vs. real-time), or any limitations. For a simple one-parameter tool with good annotations, this is adequate but leaves notable gaps about data content and scope.

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 only defines 'symbol' as a string with a default, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by enumerating the eight valid choices for symbol (e.g., '全部股票', '沪深A股') and specifying the type, which is essential for correct invocation. It adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states this tool retrieves the '主力净流入排名' (main net inflow ranking) from East Money's data center, with the URL as source. It identifies the specific resource (capital flow rankings) and the parameter symbol to filter stock universe, distinguishing it from other fund flow tools that focus on individual stocks or sectors. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like stock_fund_flow_individual or stock_fund_flow_industry.

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. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or scenarios (e.g., 'use this for market-wide rankings'). Given the large number of similar tools in the sibling list, this is a significant gap.

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