fund_lof_hist_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns a pandas.DataFrame with daily quotes, which is useful, but it does not disclose date format, error behavior, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 and structured as a one-line title followed by a Python-style docstring. It avoids redundant prose. The URL example adds some value but is not essential, and the parameter lines are efficient.

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 historical-data fetch, the description covers the key parameters and return type. Yet it omits usage guidance, date format details, and any differentiation from related sibling tools, making it only partially complete for an agent trying to select and invoke it correctly.

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 description provides Chinese names and explicit enum choices for period and adjust, plus a return type, which is valuable because the input schema has 0% description coverage and no enum definitions. However, it does not specify the expected date format for start_date and end_date, though the schema defaults imply YYYYMMDD.

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 is '东方财富-LOF 行情', a noun phrase identifying the data source and instrument but not a clear verb-action statement. The historical aspect is inferred only from the tool name and the date-range parameters, not explicitly stated. It also does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like fund_lof_spot_em or fund_lof_hist_min_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as fund_lof_spot_em and fund_lof_hist_min_em exist, but the description does not mention them or offer any selection criteria. It only lists parameters and return type, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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