板块资金面：获取概念或行业板块主力资金流向、两融余额数据

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or historical data, or handles errors. For a data retrieval tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, concise sentence in Chinese that matches the title. While it's not verbose, it lacks front-loaded clarity and doesn't structure information to guide usage effectively. It's minimal but under-specified rather than efficiently 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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with no annotations and multiple siblings, it fails to provide sufficient context on behavior, usage, or differentiation. The high schema coverage helps, but the description is too sparse to be fully complete for effective agent use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('date' and 'query'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'stockCapAnalysis', 'sectorFunAnalysis', 'sectorPriceChangeRank'), the description fails to indicate scenarios where this tool is preferred, such as for sector-level capital analysis versus stock-level or other sector metrics.

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