沪深港通北向资金

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention data freshness, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens on error (e.g., invalid indicator value). The description focuses solely on purpose, lacking behavioral context.

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 consists of two short, focused sentences. The first states the action and scope, the second adds context. No extraneous information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the returned data looks like (e.g., time series, aggregation). It does not. Additionally, behavioral info is missing. For a simple tool like this, the description is adequate for core purpose but incomplete for a fully informed call.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'indicator' parameter and its three options. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema's default and enum values, so baseline 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 the tool retrieves north-bound capital flow data (沪深港通北向资金) including specific channels (沪股通, 深股通) and notes its significance as a bellwether. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('获取...数据') and is distinct from sibling tools like stock_fund_flow or stock_sector_fund_flow_rank.

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 description implicitly guides usage by noting that '北向资金是A股重要的风向标' (important bellwether), suggesting use for market sentiment analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings.

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