stock_sector_fund_flow_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context: the data source URL, return type (pandas.DataFrame), and indicator choices (今日/5日/10日). However, it does not disclose potential data latency, pagination, or any limitations, which would be valuable for a data-fetching tool.

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 text is reasonably compact but includes redundant elements: the title line duplicates the description's first phrase, and the URL may not be essential for an agent. The docstring-style formatting is clear and front-loaded, but the extra URL and repeated title make it slightly cluttered.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return type, which is adequate for basic invocation. However, it lacks explicit usage context, differentiation from close siblings (e.g., stock_sector_fund_flow_hist, stock_sector_fund_flow_rank), and any examples or edge-case handling, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is the best choice.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It provides clear semantics: symbol is '行业名称' (industry name) and indicator is a choice of {'今日', '5日', '10日'}. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions, though it could be more explicit about the format of symbol values.

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 resource ('行业资金流' - industry fund flow) and the specific output ('xx行业个股资金流' - individual stock fund flows for a given industry). The verb is implied but the scope is specific, and the resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like stock_sector_fund_flow_rank and stock_sector_fund_flow_hist, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or which sibling tools serve different purposes. The description only enumerates parameters and return type, leaving selection decisions to the agent without contextual hints.

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