获取组合持仓

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the point-in-time nature of the data ('当前持仓详情'), but does not reveal further behavioral details such as pagination or error handling. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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 single efficient sentence that front-loads the main action and then lists the useful returned fields. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or padding.

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 tool is simple: one param, one resource, and an output schema exists to describe return values. The description plus schema fully cover what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. No meaningful gaps.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents cube_symbol including the example format and source (get_user_cubes). Description adds no extra parameter semantics, but none is needed.

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 and resource: getting the current holdings of a Xueqiu cube, including stock name, code, and weight. The word '当前' clearly distinguishes it from get_cube_rebalancing, which covers historical rebalancing events.

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 intended use is clear: call this when you need the current holdings snapshot of a specific cube. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives or mention get_cube_rebalancing, but '当前持仓' provides enough contextual direction for an agent to select this tool.

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