fund_derived

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but provides no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a real-time or cached data source. For a financial data tool with no annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 appropriately concise with only two sentences that directly address purpose and parameters. The structure is clear with a purpose statement followed by an 'Args' section. While efficient, the front-loading could be improved as the first sentence is quite vague, but overall there's minimal wasted text.

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 complexity of financial data tools, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'derived data' includes, how results are structured, whether there are limitations or prerequisites, or how this differs from similar fund tools. For a tool in a crowded namespace with 45 siblings, more contextual information is needed to guide appropriate usage.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'fund_code' with a brief explanation. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides only a default value and type. The description adds minimal semantic value by confirming this is a fund code parameter, but doesn't explain format requirements, validation rules, or provide examples beyond the default. This meets the baseline for a single parameter tool but doesn't fully compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 '获取基金衍生数据' (get fund derived data), which is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'fund_derived' in Chinese. While it specifies the resource (fund derived data), it lacks a specific verb beyond 'get' and doesn't distinguish this tool from its many siblings that also retrieve financial data (like fund_detail, fund_info, fund_asset, etc.). The purpose is vague about what type of 'derived data' this provides compared to other fund-related tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 45 sibling tools on the server, including multiple fund-specific ones (fund_achievement, fund_asset, fund_detail, fund_growth, fund_info, fund_manager, fund_nav_history, fund_trade_date), there's no indication of what makes 'fund_derived' distinct or when it should be chosen over these other options. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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