stock_xjll_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and parameter value examples, which is useful, but it does not disclose anything about rate limits, pagination, or the scope of the returned data beyond '现金流量表'.

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 front-loaded with the resource name, followed by a URL, then parameter and return notes. It is reasonably sized and structured, though the URL could be considered non-essential for tool selection.

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 one-parameter read-only data fetch, the description covers source, parameter format, and return type. However, it does not clarify what the returned DataFrame contains (columns, scope per stock or per market) and lacks differentiation from similar cash flow statement tools, leaving an agent to infer critical context.

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 for the single 'date' parameter is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives example values like '20200331' and notes the starting range (from 20100331), which helps, but it does not fully enumerate choices or explain the default and the exact date format (e.g., quarter-end).

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 source and resource: '东方财富-数据中心-年报季报-业绩快报-现金流量表'. This is more than a tautology and tells the agent it fetches cash flow statement data. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like stock_cash_flow_sheet_by_report_em that also provide cash flow statements, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only identifies the data source and parameter format; it does not say under what conditions an agent should choose this over other cash flow statement tools.

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