fund_graded_fund_info_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the data source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame), but it does not disclose pagination, data volume, or columns, which would be useful but is not strictly required given the annotations.

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 short and organized with URL, parameter, and return type sections. However, the exact same Chinese phrase is repeated in the description and in the :return: field, making it slightly redundant.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides the source, parameter semantics, and return type. It does not specify expected DataFrame columns, time range, or historical depth, but the title '历史净值明细' communicates the general content.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that symbol means '分级基金代码' and recommends ak.fund_money_fund_daily_em() to obtain valid symbol values, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It does not specify format constraints like six-digit codes, but the example and explanation are sufficient.

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 (分级基金净值-历史净值明细) and data source, making it understandable that this returns historical NAV details for graded funds. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like '获取' or '查询', and it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling fund_graded_fund_daily_em.

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 useful context that the symbol can be obtained via ak.fund_money_fund_daily_em(), which helps the caller supply a valid parameter. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus similar fund-related functions or mention any exclusions.

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