Fetch paginated private fund rankings sorted by six-month return by default, 50 per page, including NAV and period returns for performance comparison and current net value sourcing.
获取私募排行榜（默认近半年收益排序，每页 50 条，共约 3460 只 可翻页）。每条含 fund_id、期末净值 nav、成立来/今年/近半年~近五年 各期收益，可直接用作基金当前单位净值来源。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the default ordering (near-half-year returns), pagination (50 per page, ~3460 total, paginable), and the per-entry fields, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or whether results are a snapshot.
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?
One dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then the default ordering and return contents. Efficient, though it packs many clauses together.
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 annotations or an output schema, the description does describe the returned fields (fund_id, nav, multi-period returns), which partly substitutes for a missing output schema. It remains silent on authentication and on distinguishing this from sibling retrieval tools, leaving real gaps.
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 'page' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description compensates partially by noting 50 records per page and that the list is paginable, implying how 'page' behaves, but adds no further syntax or bounds.
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 ("获取私募排行榜") and clarifies scope (private fund ranking, ~3460 funds). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_funds or get_fund_performance, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The default sort and page size are described, but an agent must infer when this ranking list is preferable to search_funds or get_fund_performance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.