Fetch a user's local investment profile by user ID to access risk preference, style, experience, goals, and settings for tailored guidance.
读取本地用户 profile。
Args:
user_id: 用户 ID（默认 local）
Returns:
{exists: true/false, profile: {...}} — profile 含昵称/风险偏好/投资风格/
经验年限/目标/设置/创建与最近活跃时间
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | No | local |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real value by disclosing the return shape, including the exists boolean, which signals behavior when no profile is present. It says nothing about permissions, storage location semantics beyond '本地', or side effects, but for a simple read this is an acceptable middle score.
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 Args/Returns layout is front-loaded and compact, with the purpose stated first. Every line carries information; the only mild waste is repeating the default value that the schema already declares.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the profile fields returned (昵称/风险偏好/投资风格/经验年限/目标/设置/创建与最近活跃时间). For a one-parameter read tool this is close to complete, missing only guidance on which sibling to prefer.
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% for the single parameter, but the description only restates the schema's own default ('user_id: 用户 ID（默认 local）'), adding no format, valid-value, or resolution semantics beyond what the schema already shows. Adequate but not compensating for the 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('读取本地用户 profile'), which cleanly separates it from user_create_profile and user_update_profile. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling memory_get_user_profile, leaving the agent to guess which profile source to read.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_get_user_profile or user_get_activity_stats, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.