fund_etf_hist_sina

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the fact that it returns daily market data, which is useful. It doesn't disclose potential network dependencies or data availability, but with annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 compact, composed of a title, source URL, and a lightweight docstring. It's properly scoped and avoids redundancy, though the information could be better organized with a leading action sentence.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the source, parameter acquisition, and return type. There's no explanation of the output columns, date range, or the exact symbol format, which leaves some ambiguity. Given the simplicity and annotation coverage, it's minimally sufficient but not rich.

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 schema provides only the parameter name and default, with 0% coverage. The description compensates by explaining 'symbol' as the fund name and pointing to fund_etf_category_sina() to obtain valid values. This gives the agent actionable guidance, though the term '基金名称' (fund name) slightly conflicts with the default value 'sh510050', which looks more like a ticker symbol.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving Sina Finance ETF fund daily market data ('日行情数据'), which clearly indicates its purpose. The 'sina' in both the tool name and description distinguishes it from similar East Money (em) fund history tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb and is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an action statement.

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 notes that the symbol parameter can be obtained via ak.fund_etf_category_sina(), providing a useful prerequisite for use. It does not, however, compare this tool to alternative historical data tools like fund_etf_hist_em or give explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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