获取基金净值历史

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that historical net value data is retrieved and lists the fields returned, which conveys the core read-only behavior. However, it does not mention constraints such as the limit affecting the number of records, the date range, or the output format, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 core function, then lists relevant data fields and a use case. There is no redundancy or fluff; every clause adds value and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is relatively brief. It adequately explains what the tool does and for what purpose, but it does not describe the return structure or any data limitations. The schema covers the parameters, so an agent can call the tool, yet the absence of richer contextual detail (e.g., whether results are ordered by date, the meaning of the default limit) makes it minimally complete rather than fully self-explanatory.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters (code with an example, limit with a default and suggested range). The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters themselves, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The mention of data fields in the description slightly helps interpret the output but not the parameters.

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' / retrieve) and resource ('基金的历史净值数据' / historical NAV data for funds), and enumerates the data fields (单位净值、累计净值、日增长率) that make its function distinct. It clearly separates itself from sibling tools like fund_holdings or fund_ranking, which cover different aspects 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 description provides a clear context for use: '用于分析基金业绩表现' (for analyzing fund performance). It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the implied purpose is unambiguous enough to guide an agent on when to call this tool versus related fund tools.

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