同 ETF 共同持仓核心标的

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the data-fetching and aggregation behavior: pulls top-10 holdings, counts overlapping holdings, calculates average weight and co-rate, then outputs the top co-rate targets. It does not mention rate limits, data freshness, or error behavior, but for a read/analysis tool this is reasonably complete.

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 compact and well-structured: one sentence describes the input-process-output chain, and a second explains the purpose. There is no redundant or filler content; every clause contributes meaningful 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?

The description is complete enough for a two-parameter tool with no output schema. It specifies inputs, computation logic, and the type of output. It lacks explicit notes on return structure or invalid code handling, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that etf_codes refers to same-theme ETFs/funds and mentions top-10 holdings, but it does not add significant semantic detail beyond the schema, and top_n is not elaborated in the description.

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 the tool's input (a set of same-theme ETF/fund codes), the operation (fetch top-10 holdings, compute co-held counts, average weight, and co-rate), and the output (the core targets with the highest co-rate). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like etf_crowding_alert or fund_holdings, so it stops short of full 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?

The description gives a clear use case: identifying genuinely co-held core assets in same-theme products and avoiding duplicate allocation. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand the intended application.

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