Broker holdings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a GET operation and lists returned fields, implying a read-only data retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive, mention response structure (e.g., array vs object, grouped by broker), or discuss potential error conditions. The 'Current' qualifier and GET HTTP method provide some transparency, but more explicit disclosure would be better.

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 packs the endpoint, data fields, brokers, usage phrase, and a prerequisite note. It is concise and front-loads the core purpose. While it could be segmented for readability, it is efficient and free of fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no inputs), the description is largely complete. It lists the data fields returned and indicates broker scope. It does not specify the exact return format (e.g., JSON array) or any pagination, but for a no-input data retrieval tool, the agent likely has enough to invoke it correctly. The absence of an output schema increases the burden slightly, but the field list mitigates that.

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 the description states 'No inputs.' Since there are no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly notes the absence of inputs, which is all that is needed.

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 endpoint (GET /api/external/ro/holdings) and enumerates the returned fields (symbol, quantity, cost, market value, PnL) and brokers (Longbridge/Futu/IBKR). It clearly identifies what the tool does and is distinct from siblings like ro_catalog, ro_grid, ro_logs based on the holdings-specific focus.

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?

It provides an explicit usage trigger: 'Use for "现在仓位/持仓怎样"' (i.e., when users ask about current positions/holdings). It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling names (catalog, grid, logs) make the differentiation clear. The note 'No credentials or webhooks' also clarifies prerequisites.

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