get_money_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the type of data returned (main/retail net inflow, order size distribution) but omits details about return format, units, date behavior, or any potential side effects. It is not misleading, but transparency is average.

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?

A single compact sentence conveys the core purpose and data categories without redundant phrases. It is front-loaded and every word adds value.

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 tool is relatively simple with well-defined parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not clarify the return structure or units. While adequate for selection, the absence of result-shape information leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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 100% for both parameters (code and days), including an example and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter context, but since the schema is self-sufficient, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool as retrieving A-share money flow data, specifying key sub-components (main/retail net inflow and large/medium/small order distribution). This provides a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_realtime_quote or get_kline.

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?

Usage context is only implied through the tool name and description; it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The description makes clear it is for money flow analysis, but lacks direct comparison with sibling tools.

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