基金理财查询（同花顺问财）

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the data source (Tonghuashun iwencai) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, whether the query gets rewritten, or any rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 efficient sentence that leads with the core purpose and then gives the data source. It is compact and free of filler, though it lacks structured sections such as examples or alternative routing, which prevents a 5.

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?

The description is minimal for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It lacks an example query, expected output format, differentiation from select_fund/select_fundcompany/select_fundmanager, and any explanation of how the optional page/limit parameters affect results. This leaves an agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description only restates the natural-language input concept already present in the schema and adds no additional semantic meaning for page or limit parameters.

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 a specific action: comprehensive analysis of funds covering performance, holdings, risk, ratings, awards, fund managers, and fund companies, with natural language input. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like select_fund or query_finance_data, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as select_fund or query_finance_data. The only usage hint is that input should be a natural-language question, but there are no exclusions, examples, or decision criteria for selecting among siblings.

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