Fetch detailed information for a private fund by its ID, covering net asset value, returns, strategy, and management.
查询基金详情（fund_id 形如 HF0000DEHO，可先用 search_funds 检索）。
返回当前净值 nav（含净值日期、今年以来/成立以来收益）、基本信息 （策略、成立日、开放日、托管人、备案号、投资范围）、管理公司与经理。 nav 为 None 表示该基金未进排行榜（站方对详情页净值做了图片化）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fund_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious edge case (nav=None when the fund is absent from the ranking because the site image-ized the nav), but it is silent on auth/permission needs despite set_token/check_auth siblings implying a gated API.
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 with purpose and the id format, then return contents and the None edge case. The enumeration of returned fields (strategy, inception date, custodian, filing number, etc.) is somewhat long but each item is informative for a tool with no output schema.
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 no output schema, the description responsibly enumerates the return payload and flags the nav=None caveat, which is exactly the missing structured information. The main remaining gap is auth expectation, which the sibling tools imply but the description never states.
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% and the single fund_id param is bare. The description compensates by giving an example identifier shape and telling the agent how to obtain a valid id via search_funds, adding meaning well beyond the empty schema.
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+resource (query fund details) and pins the fund_id format with a concrete example (HF0000DEHO). It distinguishes itself from search_funds but not from close siblings like get_fund_returns, get_fund_performance, and get_fund_asset_size, whose data this description says it also returns (nav, YTD/inception returns).
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 parenthetical '可先用 search_funds 检索' gives a clear prerequisite/alternative for obtaining the id, which is real guidance. However, it offers no when-not-to-use or routing against the overlapping performance/returns/asset-size siblings, leaving usage only partially explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.