A股板块资金流

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It omits details about data freshness, return format, or side effects. The tool's behavior is minimally described beyond its basic function.

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 very concise at one sentence, which is efficient. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, not mentioning the full range of fund flow categories. It is front-loaded but could be slightly more informative.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the complexity of fund flow ranking data, the description is insufficient. It does not describe the output structure, ranking basis, or update frequency, leaving critical gaps for agent understanding.

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 100%, with parameter descriptions already covering the allowed values. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so a 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 states it obtains industry fund flow data for China A-share markets (Shanghai, Shenzhen). However, it does not mention that it also supports concept and regional fund flows via the 'cate' parameter, which narrows the stated scope slightly.

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 usage guidelines or comparisons to sibling tools are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus related tools like 'stock_fund_flow' or 'stock_sector_spot', leaving the agent without context for selection.

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