get_fund_quotes

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description complements this by specifying the returned data: latest NAV, cumulative NAV, and change amount. It does not disclose error handling or rate limits, but for a simple read-only quote tool, this is adequate. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that immediately states the action and resource, then lists key output fields. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and return values. The annotations and schema cover safety and input format. Even without explicit error/limit details, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 input schema fully documents the single 'codes' parameter with an example, so schema coverage is high (100%). The tool description does not add further parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 '获取公募基金实时行情' (get public fund real-time quotes), specifying both the action and the resource. It distinguishes from sibling quote tools by focusing on public funds and mentions return fields, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for public fund quotes but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like get_a_share_quotes or get_quotes_by_query. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, so the guideline is inferred from the tool name and description rather than stated.

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