A股板块资金流

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a read operation ('获取') but does not describe output structure, data source, or any side effects. Additionally, the description says '行业' (industry) while the schema allows multiple category types, which is a transparency 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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core function with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and easy to understand.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the essential purpose but falls short by not mentioning the ranking behavior (from the name) or the broader category support in the schema. It is minimally viable but lacks full contextual richness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (cate and days) having detailed descriptions of allowed values. The tool description does not add any extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline.

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 a specific action ('获取' / get) and target ('中国A股市场的行业资金流向数据' / China A-share market industry capital flow data), which aligns with the tool's name and title. However, it does not mention the 'rank' aspect or distinguish this tool from sibling sector-related tools like sector_rotation or sector_valuation. It also narrows the scope to '行业' (industry) while the schema supports '概念' and '地域' categories.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The schema's parameter description for 'days' includes a caution about trading days, but the main description offers no contextual decision support or comparisons with related tools.

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