获取基金排行榜

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does mention that the tool returns ranking metrics and supports filters, but it claims time-period filtering is supported while the schema only exposes fund_type, which is misleading. It also does not disclose default ordering, result limits, or output shape.

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, compact sentence with the core action and key filter concepts front-loaded. It is concise and readable, though the inclusion of an unsupported time-period filter prevents it from being fully clean.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable high-level view of the returned data and filtering capabilities. However, it lacks details about result format, ranking order, and how the claimed time-period filter should be supplied, especially because the schema does not include such a parameter.

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% for the single parameter, and the parameter description already lists allowed values. The tool description adds little beyond mentioning that results include yield and scale metrics; it does not clarify parameter usage further. The unsupported time-period claim slightly undermines parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the verb '获取' (retrieve) and the resource '基金排行榜' (fund rankings), and adds useful scope details such as metrics (收益率, 规模) and filter dimensions. It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling fund tools like fund_nav or fund_analysis, but the ranking focus is clear enough for basic identification.

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 the tool should be used when a fund ranking by performance or scale is needed, and it mentions filtering by fund type and time period. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, despite many fund-related siblings.

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