fund_money_fund_info_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 profile is covered. The description adds the data source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame), but does not disclose any special behavior like pagination, date range, or rate limits.

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 structured with title, URL, params, and return sections, but the first line and the return line are almost identical, creating redundancy. It could be tightened without losing information.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description provides the source, parameter semantics, and return type, which is adequate for basic usage, but it doesn't describe the DataFrame columns or any additional options. Given the simplicity, it's minimally 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for the symbol parameter. It explains that symbol is a money fund code and that valid values can be obtained from fund_money_fund_daily_em, which is helpful for the agent. However, it doesn't specify the format beyond the schema's string type.

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 explicitly states '基金数据-货币型基金收益-历史净值数据' (fund data - money fund yield - historical net value data), clearly identifying the resource and scope. It includes the source URL, and the specification of '货币型基金收益' distinguishes it from other fund tools like fund_money_fund_daily_em or fund_money_rank_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?

The description provides a pointer for obtaining the symbol via fund_money_fund_daily_em, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The intended use is implied by the title, but no exclusions or comparison with other sibling fund tools are provided.

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