fund_etf_hist_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns a pandas.DataFrame of daily market data, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as data source limitations, rate limits, or handling of invalid symbols. It does not contradict the annotations, but it provides minimal extra value beyond them.

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 structured docstring with a clear title, URL, and parameter definitions. Each line serves a purpose (giving choices, types, and return info). It is not overly verbose; the only potentially extraneous element is the URL, but it provides context. Overall it is efficient and well-organized.

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 historical data retrieval tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what data (ETF行情), from where (Eastmoney), how to specify it (symbol, period, dates, adjust), and what is returned (daily quotes DataFrame). It lacks explicit date format specification (e.g., YYYYMMDD), but the schema defaults (19700101, 20500101) and the docstring's '开始日期'/'结束日期' imply this. No output schema exists, so return details are minimal but sufficient for a simple OHLCV-type tool.

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 0% and there are no enums, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It explicitly lists each parameter with type and allowed choices: symbol as ETF代码, period as daily/weekly/monthly, start_date/end_date as dates, and adjust with qfq/hfq/'' (前复权/后复权/不复权). This is rich, necessary semantic information that the schema alone does not provide.

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 the resource as 东方财富-ETF行情 (Eastmoney ETF quotes) with a URL, and the return type is stated as 每日行情 (daily quotes). It is specific about the data source and instrument type, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'fetch' or 'get'. It distinguishes from siblings like fund_etf_hist_sina by the 'em' (Eastmoney) in the name and the Chinese source, but does not explicitly contrast them in the description.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fund_etf_hist_min_em or fund_etf_hist_sina. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. It only states the parameters and return type, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameter choices.

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