获取基金资产配置

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the data source, the return categories, a 72-hour cache, and a quarterly update cadence. This is useful operational transparency, though it does not discuss edge cases like invalid fund codes or empty responses.

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 compact sentence conveys source, resource, return content, categories, cache duration, and update frequency with no fluff. The most important information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool, the description is largely complete: it identifies the return categories and the nature of the output ('仓位占比'), while the schema covers both parameters. There is no output schema, so exact response key names or units are not specified, but the description provides enough context for a correct call.

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 already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, including the code format/example and the date format/default behavior. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond noting the quarterly update cadence, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('返回'), a specific resource (雪球基金-基金详情-持仓资产比例), and the exact content: large-asset allocation across 股票/现金/债券/其他. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like fund_holdings, fund_industry_allocation, and fund_bond_holdings, which cover different granularities of fund positions.

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 when to use the tool by specifying '大类资产仓位占比', which separates it from more granular or different allocation tools. However, it does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, so the usage guidance is mostly inferred rather than explicit.

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