stock_market_fund_flow

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 the data source (Eastmoney), the URL, and that it returns a pandas DataFrame of recent data, but does not disclose any additional behavioral nuances such as data update frequency or row count. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 concise, consisting of a source title, URL, and return type. It is front-loaded with the resource name and avoids unnecessary prose, though the URL is somewhat redundant with the title.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters, the description provides enough context: it identifies the data source, the specific dataset (market-wide fund flow), and the return type. An output schema is absent, but the return type is mentioned, making it reasonably complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully descriptive. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 the tool returns recent market-wide fund flow data (大盘资金流) from Eastmoney, with a specific URL as evidence. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on sector or individual fund flows.

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 implies usage for retrieving recent market-wide fund flow data, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like stock_sector_fund_flow_rank or stock_individual_fund_flow. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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