持仓盈亏图表

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool produces an ASCII bar chart of holdings P&L, which is its main behavior, but it does not state that it reads from existing saved portfolio data or whether it is read-only. The data source and preconditions remain implicit.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler; the key facts (generate, ASCII bar chart, holdings P&L) are all present and front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient, but it omits the dependency on existing portfolio state. The agent is not told that portfolio data must already exist (e.g., via portfolio_add). This is a meaningful gap, though the tool is simple.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools.

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 uses a specific verb '生成' and names the exact resource/output: an ASCII bar chart of portfolio P&L. This clearly separates it from generic drawing tools like draw_ascii_chart. It could more explicitly contrast with portfolio_view, but the resource and format are unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description implies the tool is for visualizing portfolio P&L as ASCII, but it doesn't mention draw_ascii_chart, portfolio_view, or any prerequisite. An agent must infer usage from the name rather than being told.

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