get_fund_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states what data is returned but says nothing about whether this is a read-only call, whether there are symbol-format or market-scope constraints, rate limits, or data freshness. The 'get' wording weakly implies read-only but that is inference, not disclosure.

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 that front-loads the resource ('个股逐日资金流') followed by the returned fields. No filler or repetition, though it is terse enough to omit essential invoking detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description does add the field taxonomy anyway. However, with 0% parameter documentation and no usage or behavioral context, an agent still lacks what it needs to invoke the tool correctly across markets or symbol formats.

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 0% — neither 'symbol' nor 'days' is documented anywhere. The description does not compensate at all: it never mentions the stock identifier or the lookback window, so an agent gets no guidance on symbol format or what the days default of 10 means.

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 names a concrete resource (per-stock daily fund flow) and enumerates the specific data returned (main force / super-large / large / medium / small order net inflow and their proportions). That is far more specific than a tautology. It does not, however, position itself against siblings like get_kline or the limit-up/limit-down pools, which an agent may confuse for related market-data queries.

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 statement, no conditions or prerequisites, and no mention of an alternative tool. The agent must infer from the resource name alone that this is for capital-flow analysis rather than price history, which get_kline also covers.

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