stock_fund_stock_holder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety profile is covered. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the source URL, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose details like column names, data freshness, or whether the symbol must be a 6-digit code, so it only partially adds value 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 structured as a concise docstring with URL, param, and return sections. It is compact and easy to parse, though it repeats the title in both the first line and the return line, which is slightly redundant but not harmful.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with good annotations and a clear return type, the description is fairly complete. It identifies the data source, the parameter meaning, and the return structure. It lacks detail on the DataFrame's columns or symbol format, but given the simplicity and existing annotations, this is a minor gap.

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 schema has zero description coverage, but the description provides ':param symbol: 股票代码' (stock code), which clarifies the meaning of the single parameter. The default value '600004' serves as an example. This sufficiently compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 '新浪财经-股本股东-基金持股' (Sina Finance - Shareholders - Fund Holdings) and includes a source URL, clearly indicating it retrieves fund holding data for a stock. Although no explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch' is present, the title and context make the purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates from sibling tools like stock_main_stock_holder by specifying '基金持股' (fund holdings).

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 alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The description is purely descriptive and does not help the agent decide between this and the many similar stock holder tools.

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