stock_sector_fund_flow_hist

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, which cover the safety profile. The description adds the data source (East Money), a URL, and the return type (pandas DataFrame), providing some context. However, it does not disclose details like date ranges, pagination, or data update frequency, so it adds moderate value 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 quite short and includes a title, URL, and a brief docstring with parameter and return info. It is structured and avoids waste, but the first line is more of a label than a concise summary sentence. It could be improved by front-loading a clear one-sentence 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?

For a single-parameter tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides the source and parameter meaning. However, the return description is vague ('xx行业个股资金流') and does not clarify the exact structure of the DataFrame, date range, or whether the data is per-stock or industry-level. Without an output schema, this is a notable gap.

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 has only a 'symbol' parameter with 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. The description provides ':param symbol: 行业名称', adding that the parameter is an industry name, which is helpful. However, it does not specify valid values, format (e.g., Chinese name), or how to discover industry names, leaving the parameter semantics incomplete.

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 fetching industry historical capital flow data from East Money, with a specific URL and parameter for industry name. However, the return description 'xx行业个股资金流' is slightly ambiguous—it could mean individual stock flows within the industry rather than the industry's aggregate historical flow. The tool name and title help disambiguate to historical sector fund flow.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stock_sector_fund_flow_rank or stock_sector_fund_flow_summary. The name implies 'hist' means historical, but the description does not state this or provide any usage context or exclusions.

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