fund_industry_allocationRetrieve a fund's industry holdings and market values by fund code, with optional year filter. Uses data from Tiantian Fund Net, updated quarterly with 12-hour cache.
天天基金网-基金档案-行业配置：返回基金在各行业的持仓比例、市值等（缓存12h，季度更新）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | 基金代码，例如: 000001(华夏成长) | |
| date | No | 年份YYYY，留空自动取当前年 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context: cache duration of 12 hours and a quarterly update cycle, which inform freshness expectations. It does not detail output structure, but for a read-only data retrieval tool this is adequate.
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 front-loads the data source, the exact resource, the returned fields, and freshness behavior. There is no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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, with only two parameters and no output schema. The description covers what is returned and the update/cache behavior, and the schema fully documents parameter usage. It lacks explicit mention of return format details or alternatives, but these are not critical for such a focused retrieval tool.
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 both code and date already explained in the schema. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the general notion of industry allocation, so the baseline score 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?
Description states a specific verb '返回' and a precise resource: 基金在各行业的持仓比例、市值等. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like fund_holdings and fund_asset_allocation, which cover other dimensions of fund data.
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 use case is implied by the description and source path '天天基金网-基金档案-行业配置': an agent needing fund-level industry allocation should call this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related siblings or mention any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.