问财选ETF（同花顺问财）

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds the data source and criteria categories, but it does not describe return format, pagination behavior, data freshness, error conditions, or limitations of the underlying 同花顺问财 data.

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 two concise clauses: the first states the tool's purpose and filtering dimensions, the second identifies the data source. It is front-loaded, uses no filler, and every element contributes to agent understanding.

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 simple selection tool, the description gives the core purpose and data source, and the schema covers page and limit. However, with no output schema and no behavioral annotations, it leaves return-value structure and operational details implicit, which is a noticeable gap for an agent deciding how to present or post-process results.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by expanding the meaning of 'query': it tells the agent that queries can incorporate market conditions, index fundamentals, size, style types, and similar criteria, which goes beyond the schema's generic natural-language description.

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 identifies a specific verb ('筛选') and resource ('ETF'), and names the filtering dimensions: market conditions, index fundamentals, size, and style. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but 'ETF' distinguishes it from stock, fund, and other selection tools well enough.

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 implied usage is clear: use this tool when the user wants to filter ETFs by various financial criteria. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over select_fund, select_astock, or query_fund_data, and no stated exclusions.

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