fund_portfolio_change_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and source URL, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, or error conditions. It does not contradict 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 a compact docstring with title, URL, parameter list, and return type. It is front-loaded and each section serves a purpose, though the first line repeats the title without adding new information. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and return type, which is enough for basic invocation. However, it lacks usage context, output column details, and references to alternative tools. Given the simple schema and strong annotations, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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% and the indicator parameter has no enum in the schema. The description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: symbol is the fund code, indicator is a choice of '累计买入' or '累计卖出', and date is the query year. This is essential for correct invocation.

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 resource as fund portfolio major changes from Eastmoney's fund archive, with a URL and parameter list. It clearly implies the tool retrieves major changes for a given fund, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'fetch'. It is distinct from siblings like fund_portfolio_hold_em by name and resource path, but the description itself does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative fund portfolio tools. The description only provides parameter semantics and return type, with no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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