fq_get_money_flow_contribution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint (false), so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond mentioning topGainers/topLosers, but does not describe sorting, default behavior, or response details.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but overly brief. It lacks structure and does not front-load critical information. More detail is expected given the tool's complexity (7 parameters).

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool with 7 parameters and 0% schema coverage. It fails to explain what the output contains (despite having an output schema) or how parameters like 'index', 'tickers', and date ranges affect results. The user is left guessing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It only hints at the 'direction' parameter via 'topGainers, topLosers' but leaves other 6 parameters (index, limit, tickers, to_date, from_date, contribution_day) completely unexplained.

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 states the tool provides a ranking of money-flow/index contribution, specifying top gainers and top losers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fq_get_market_statistics or fq_get_index_constituents, though the term 'contribution' is not further explained.

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 such as fq_get_market_breadth or fq_get_equity_snapshot. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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