fund_open_fund_rank_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and a source URL, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, data latency, or any side effects. No contradictions with 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 concise and follows a docstring structure with a title, URL, parameter, and return type. Every line serves a purpose, though the URL is arguably redundant. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids excessive verbosity.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and strong annotations, the description provides the essential elements: source, parameter choices, and return type. However, it lacks details about the returned DataFrame's columns or data semantics, and with no output schema, the return description is only high-level. This leaves some gaps but is adequate for a simple read-only ranking tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by listing the exact allowed values for 'symbol' (全部, 股票型, 混合型, 债券型, 指数型, QDII, FOF), which are not present in the schema. This gives meaning beyond the raw type/default information.

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 tool as fetching open fund rankings from Eastmoney's data center ('东方财富网-数据中心-开放基金排行'), which is a specific resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings by the 'open fund' qualifier in both the name and description, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other fund ranking tools (e.g., fund_exchange_rank_em, fund_hk_rank_em). It only lists the allowed symbol choices, which is parameter guidance rather than tool-selection guidance. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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