get_qhkc_fund_money_change

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context not in the annotations: the hard data-availability window of 2016-10-10 to 2019-09-30, which an agent needs to avoid empty results. It does not discuss rate limits or failure modes, keeping it below 5.

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 purpose and date-range constraint are correctly front-loaded, and the :param/:return/:rtype blocks are conventional. But the description then dumps ~60 rows of raw sample output, which dominates its length and buries the usable guidance. Given no output schema this sample has some value, but the volume is disproportionate.

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 embedded sample table does inform the agent about the returned columns (name/value/ratio/date), which is legitimately useful. The date range is also covered. But the misleading 'date' parameter description and the absence of any routing guidance leave clear gaps for a tool sitting among many similar qhkc siblings.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the param burden, and it partly fails: ':param url: 网址' is fine, but ':param date: 中文名称' (Chinese name) mislabels what is clearly a date parameter (default '20190924'). This is misleading rather than merely thin. The schema supplies only defaults, so the mislabel is not corrected anywhere.

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?

States a specific resource (奇货可查-资金-成交额分布, i.e. turnover/funding distribution from the QHKC source) and the time window available. It is distinguishable from nearby siblings like get_qhkc_fund_bs and get_qhkc_fund_position, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them. The tool name ('money_change') and the stated purpose ('成交额分布') are slightly out of sync, which costs a point.

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?

It discloses the usable date range (2016-10-10 to 2019-09-30), which implicitly bounds when the tool is applicable. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the other qhkc/资金 tools, nor any note on prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied.

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