获取基金盈利概率

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

没有提供注解，描述承担了行为披露责任；它说明了数据来源为雪球基金、存在24小时缓存，并表明是基于历史数据的统计。但未明确说明是否只读、返回结构、X的具体含义或计算边界，披露不够完整。

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?

用一句话浓缩了工具来源、计算口径、返回指标和缓存特性，信息密度高且前置了核心含义。‘X’指代不够明确是唯一瑕疵，但整体仍简洁有效。

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?

对于单参数工具，描述给出了返回的指标名称和基本计算逻辑，属于基本够用。但没有输出schema，也没有说明返回格式、X如何确定或是否一次返回多个期限，缺少部分对调用者有用的上下文。

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?

输入schema对code已有100%描述，说明为基金代码并给出示例。描述本身未在参数层面增加额外信息，但由于单参数已被schema完全覆盖，达到基线水平。

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?

描述明确说明这是获取基金盈利概率的工具，并给出‘历史任意时点买入，持有满X时间的盈利概率和平均收益’这一具体口径，能与其他基金类工具区分。但‘X’未定义，且未显式与fund_analysis等潜在重叠工具做区分。

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?

没有说明何时使用此工具、何时应改用其他基金相关工具，也没有提供任何替代或排除条件。在大量基金类兄弟工具中，仅能靠名称隐含用途，缺少明确的选择依据。

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