行业轮动

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

With no annotations, the description shoulders the transparency burden. It discloses the analytic approach (fund flow + price change) and the short-term focus, but omits output format, data source, or update cadence. This is moderate transparency, but gaps remain.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and key context. Every word is informative, with no fluff or repetition, making it ideal for a no-parameter tool.

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 return values, but it doesn't. However, the core purpose is clear enough for basic selection. For a simple no-param read tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema trivially covers all cases. Baseline 4 is appropriate since there is nothing for the description to add about 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?

The description clearly states the tool identifies short-term strong industries using industry capital flow and price changes, giving a specific verb, resource, and methodology. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like stock_sector_fund_flow_rank, but the combination of metrics is unique enough to be clear.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The purpose implies a use case (finding short-term strong sectors), but there is no comparison with similar sector tools or notes on when to prefer this tool, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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