A股基金持仓

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns top holdings and changes, but omits details like data lag, sorting order, or limit effects. It does not contradict annotations (none present).

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 efficiently front-load the core action and purpose. No redundant or extraneous text.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers basic usage but lacks details on data source, limitations, or how it differs from similar sibling tools like stock_top10_holders.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'date' and 'limit'. It doesn't clarify date format usage or limit impact.

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 fetches 'A-share fund heavy-position stock data' and displays top holdings and changes, effectively specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like stock_holder_num (shareholder count) and stock_top10_holders (top 10 holders) by focusing on fund holdings, though could be more explicit.

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 'for tracking institutional trends', implying usage context, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to similar tools are provided.

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