fund_money_fund_daily_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds that the tool returns a pandas DataFrame for the current trading day, which is some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential caveats such as network dependence, data update timing, or exact columns, leaving the description only partially informative beyond 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 extremely concise: a title line, a URL, a return description, and a return type. Every element serves a purpose, and it is immediately clear what the tool does and what it returns. There is no wasted text.

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 tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: the data source, the scope (current trading day), and the return type (pandas DataFrame). It does not enumerate columns or limitations, but given the tool's simplicity and the existing annotations, the description is largely sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Per the rubric baseline, 0 params warrants a score of 4. The schema already confirms no parameters exist, and the description adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable.

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 providing money market fund return data from Eastmoney's fund page. It specifies the scope ('当前交易日的所有货币型基金收益数据' – all money fund returns for the current trading day) which clarifies what it does. It lacks an explicit verb but the return statement implies retrieval, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like fund_money_rank_em (ranking) and fund_money_fund_info_em (information) by focusing on daily return data.

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. The description only gives the source URL and return type, with no mention of when this is the appropriate choice compared to other money fund tools or any exclusions.

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