Query a fund's current metrics and interval performance, including returns, drawdown, Sharpe ratio, benchmark comparisons, and peer rankings across time periods.
查询基金当前指标与区间业绩汇总（净值日期、收益/回撤/夏普等指标， 以及成立来/今年/近一月~近五年各区间收益与基准对照、同类排名）。
| 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 behavioral burden. It discloses the breadth of data returned but says nothing about side effects, permissions/auth requirements, data freshness, rate limits, or error behavior; 'query' implies read-only but that is inference, not disclosure.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the detailed enumeration quarantined in a parenthetical. The parenthetical is dense but every item earns its place by describing the payload, and there is no filler.
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 and no annotations, the description usefully enumerates the returned metrics and horizons, which is the main thing an agent needs to judge relevance. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool, though units, currency and data recency are unaddressed.
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 0% and the description never mentions fund_id, so it adds no meaning beyond the parameter's already self-evident name and string type. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and here it does not.
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 (查询) and resource (基金业绩/指标), then enumerates the concrete contents returned: NAV date, return/drawdown/Sharpe, multi-horizon interval returns, benchmark comparison and peer ranking. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_fund_returns or get_ranking, which overlap heavily with the '区间收益' and '同类排名' content it claims.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_fund, get_fund_returns, get_fund_asset_size or get_ranking, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The overlap with get_fund_returns and get_ranking is left entirely for the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.