list_factors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return fields (code, name, category, annualized return, Sharpe ratio) but omits behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or read-only nature. The description does not contradict any missing 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?

Two concise sentences in Chinese, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: what the tool does, how to filter, and what is returned. Ideal length for quick comprehension.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the return field list in the description adds useful context. However, pagination behavior and parameter semantics are underspecified. The description is minimally adequate for a simple list tool but lacks guidance on handling result sets.

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%. The description only mentions two parameters (category and search) but does not clarify their format, allowed values, or behavior. Pagination parameters (page, page_size) are ignored, leaving the agent without semantic guidance beyond parameter names.

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 tool retrieves a factor list with support for category and keyword search, and explicitly lists return fields (code, name, category, annualized return, Sharpe ratio). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `get_factor_nav` or `get_factor_scores` which target specific factor metrics.

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 mentions search capabilities (category and keyword), providing some usage context, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are noted.

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