fund_money_fund_info_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the source URL and the return type (pandas.DataFrame), which is helpful context but nothing beyond that (no rate limits, no column/date-range behavior).

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 same Chinese phrase ('东方财富网-天天基金网-基金数据-货币型基金收益-历史净值数据') is repeated three times (header, param doc, return doc), and the Sphinx-style tags are redundant with an already-terse payload. Informative but not front-loaded or tight.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only says the return is a DataFrame in the same categorical form; it does not describe the columns, date coverage, or pagination. Adequate for a single-param reader, but leaves the agent guessing about the returned fields.

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 carries the burden: it explains that symbol is a money-market fund code and points to fund_money_fund_daily_em to fetch valid values. That meaningfully compensates for the undocumented schema field, though no format example is given.

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 states a specific verb+resource: retrieve historical net-value data for money-market funds from Eastmoney/TianTian. It implicitly distinguishes itself from fund_money_fund_daily_em (which is cited only as a source of symbol codes), making the daily-vs-historical split inferable rather than explicit.

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?

It tells the agent where to obtain the symbol ('可以通过 fund_money_fund_daily_em 来获取'), which is useful routing context, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over related fund-info siblings (e.g. fund_financial_fund_info_em, fund_open_fund_info_em) or any prerequisites.

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