Fund history

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: a maximum of 60 points, oldest-first ordering, and derived result fields for NAV change or net units.

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 three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The examples, ordering note, and result note each add useful information without repetition.

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 still names the main return fields, ordering, and point cap, while the input schema fully documents parameters. It is nearly complete, though it does not describe every series-specific return shape.

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%, and the enum descriptions already explain each series in detail. The description repeats the series categories and adds some output semantics, but it does not add parameter-level meaning for days, reg_no, or group_id beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: "Get a fund's daily history." It enumerates the available series and the 60-point cap, which clearly distinguishes this historical time-series tool from sibling fund-detail 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?

It gives concrete usage examples such as "how did this fund move in the last 6 months" and "are investors putting money in." It does not explicitly name when not to use it or point to a specific sibling alternative, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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