获取组合调仓记录

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds mild context about what data the call returns (position changes, target allocations, execution prices), which goes slightly beyond the annotations. No contradiction with 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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose before the data-field enumeration. There is no filler, redundancy, or wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward read operation.

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 read-only, paginated list tool with a rich output schema, fully documented parameters, and comprehensive safety annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. The only real gap is the missing explicit contrast with get_cube_holdings, which is more of a purpose-clarity/usage concern than a completeness 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — page, count, and cube_symbol all have descriptions, and cube_symbol's schema description even notes it can be fetched via get_user_cubes. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 for fully-documented schemas applies.

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 the verb (获取/get), the resource (雪球组合的历史调仓记录), and the scope (某个 — a specific portfolio), and enumerates the returned data fields (持仓变化, 目标仓位, 成交价格). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar sibling get_cube_holdings (current holdings), relying on the word '历史' to imply the distinction.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_cube_holdings covers current positions or that cube_symbol can be obtained from get_user_cubes (that fact appears only in the input schema, not the description). The intended usage context remains purely implicit.

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