get_factor_nav

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, safe, or has side effects, nor does it mention authentication needs or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, the description carries full burden and falls short.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and avoids fluff, though slightly more context could be included without harming conciseness.

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 presence of three parameters (one required) and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics or usage nuances. Although an output schema exists (so return format is not required), the lack of parameter guidance makes the tool hard to invoke correctly.

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% (no descriptions in the input schema), and the description does not explain the purpose or format of any parameter (code, start_date, end_date). With three parameters and no added meaning, the agent cannot determine how to fill them correctly.

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) and the resource '因子净值曲线数据' (factor NAV curve data), along with the purpose of analyzing historical performance trends. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_factor_scores' which likely returns scores, not NAV curves.

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 (e.g., get_factor_scores), nor does it mention prerequisites or context such as required code format or date range conventions. This lack of usage guidance leaves the agent uncertain about selecting this tool.

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