stock_fund_flow_industry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety/behavioral profile is largely covered. The description adds the source site (同花顺 data center) and the return type (pandas.DataFrame), but says nothing about data freshness, rate limits, or what the returned columns contain.

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 docstring is compact, but the first line restates the annotation title verbatim and the raw URL adds limited signal for an agent. The parameter line is the only high-value content, and it is placed after the URL rather than front-loaded.

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 read-only fetch with annotations covering safety and no output schema (pandas.DataFrame return suffices), the description is adequate: it supplies the parameter enum and return type. It still omits any guidance on choosing this tool over its many siblings, leaving a gap for an agent navigating a large toolset.

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% – the symbol property has no description and no declared enum – so the description is the sole source of the valid values, listing all five choices (即时, 3日排行, 5日排行, 10日排行, 20日排行). This meaningfully compensates for the schema gap, though it does not explain what each ranking window represents beyond its name.

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 states a specific verb+resource: retrieve 同花顺 industry fund-flow (行业资金流) data from the data center, with the source URL reinforcing the origin. This is clearly distinguishable from concept (stock_fund_flow_concept) and individual (stock_fund_flow_individual) variants by resource, though the text never names a sibling explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite many closely related siblings (stock_fund_flow_concept, stock_sector_fund_flow_rank, stock_market_fund_flow). The enum values imply time-window selection but do not advise which mode fits which scenario.

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