fund_scale_open_sina

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety expectations. The description adds that the return is a pandas.DataFrame containing 基金规模, which is useful context, but it does not describe pagination, latency, or any potential side effects beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction exists.

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 with a clear structure: a title line, a source URL, and docstring-style parameter/return documentation. Each line serves a purpose, and it avoids unnecessary fluff. The URL adds context but is not essential, yet the overall conciseness is strong.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations present), the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the data source, parameter options, and return type, but does not describe the DataFrame's columns, index, or any filtering behavior. For a straightforward fund-scale lookup, this is sufficient but lacks depth for more nuanced use.

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 input schema provides no description for the 'symbol' parameter (0% coverage), but the description compensates by listing the exact allowed values: {"股票型基金", "混合型基金", "债券型基金", "货币型基金", "QDII基金"} and stating the type is str. This is essential information not present in the schema, though it does not explain the default behavior beyond the schema's default value.

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 states it retrieves 基金规模 (fund scale) for 开放式基金 (open-end funds) from Sina Finance, with the URL and name distinguishing it from sibling tools like fund_scale_close_sina and fund_scale_structured_sina. The action is implied as fetching/listing data, though not explicitly stated with a verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fund_scale_close_sina or fund_aum_em. The category '开放式基金' is implied by the title and URL, but there is no mention of exclusions or preferred use cases, leaving the agent to infer from the name.

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