Fund List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that each row carries a fund counter_id used by other fund_* tools, which is useful cross-tool context, but it does not disclose pagination, default limits, or return breadth beyond that single field.

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?

Two tight sentences: the purpose is front-loaded, followed by only the essential parameter and output-linkage notes. No redundant explanation or filler.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema fully documents all four parameters, so the description needn't explain those. It covers browse/screen intent, the filter helper, and a key output field, though it could say more about list size or pagination behavior for a screening tool.

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%, so the schema already documents filter, quick_ids, time_interval, and _jq. The description repeats the parameter names and clarifies that filter comes from fund_filters, but adds little syntax or behavioral detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'Browse/screen funds.' This distinguishes it from detail-oriented siblings like fund_detail and fund_nav, and the note about counter_id helps tie it into the fund_* ecosystem. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest alternatives, but the core purpose is clear.

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 names the optional filter source (fund_filters) and the quick_ids/time_interval parameters, which implies when to use the tool for screening. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus siblings such as fund_hot, fund_trend, or fund_analysis, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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