get_stock_money_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (Eastmoney via Akshare) and the returned fields, and the verb 'fetches' implies a read-only operation. It does not state error behavior for bad codes, rate limits, or whether 'recent days' means trading days or calendar days, which matters for interpreting top_n.

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?

Front-loaded summary sentence, then two short clarifying lines, then compact Args/Returns blocks. Every line adds information and nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim.

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?

For a three-parameter read-only data fetch with no output schema, the description covers source, parameter formats, defaults, and the returned column semantics. It could say more about trading-day counting and whether code needs normalization (a sibling normalize_stock_code exists), but nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, so the description must supply all parameter meaning, and it does: code with two accepted formats ('600519' or 'sh600519'), top_n as number of recent days with default 10, and format with the allowed values markdown/json/csv (which the schema does not enum-constrain). The only gap is the ambiguity of 'recent days'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetches individual stock money flow data') and adds the Chinese term plus a one-line clarification of what the data contains (capital flow by investor size). This clearly separates it from quote, kline, and financial-statement siblings, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

The phrase 'Shows capital flow breakdown by investor size categories' implies when the tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of related flow tools such as get_north_money or get_lhb_detail. Usage must be inferred from the data described.

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