查看模拟盘盈亏

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that the tool computes real-time P&L over all current simulated positions, but it does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only, whether an existing portfolio is required, or whether any side effects occur.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that adds specific, useful detail ('current', 'all', 'simulated positions', 'real-time P&L') without redundancy. No wasted words and no repetition of the title beyond necessary clarification.

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 compute/view tool, the description is mostly complete and an agent can call it correctly. The only notable gap is that it does not describe the return format, such as whether the response contains a total P&L figure or a per-position breakdown.

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 is empty and there are zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. There are no parameter details for the description to add, making this dimension correctly non-issue.

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 ('计算') and resource ('当前所有模拟持仓的实时盈亏情况'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is distinct from siblings like portfolio_add (adding positions) and portfolio_chart (charting), and aligns well with the title.

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 intended use is implied by the description: an agent should call this when the user wants the current simulated-account profit/loss. However, there is no explicit differentiation from sibling portfolio tools such as portfolio_chart or portfolio_add, so usage guidance is present but only inferred.

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