获取基金持仓明细

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the main returned data (stock code, name, holding ratio) and implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention data source, report period, ordering, pagination, or limitations. This is adequate for a simple getter but not rich.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and target, then adds a purpose clause. Every word earns its place, with no 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects), and the description does name the main output fields. However, without an output schema and with no mention of data period, source, or return structure, some information is missing. The description also does not differentiate usage among the numerous fund-related siblings.

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%, with the parameter 'code' already documented by an example (000001 华夏成长). The description adds no extra semantics about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, 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 states a specific verb ('获取') and a precise resource ('基金的股票持仓明细'), enumerating returned fields (股票代码、名称、持仓比例). The '股票' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like fund_bond_holdings and fund_asset_allocation.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus closely related siblings such as fund_analysis, fund_asset_allocation, or fund_bond_holdings. The generic phrase '用于分析基金投资组合' does not help an agent choose between the many fund-related tools.

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