获取基金持仓明细

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It transparently lists the expected output fields (stock code, name, holding ratio), but it does not mention any potential limitations (e.g., data freshness, missing code handling) or explicitly confirm a read-only nature beyond the verb '获取'.

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, front-loaded sentence that concisely states the action, resource, output scope, and purpose without any 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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the main output fields and the use case, making it reasonably complete. It could mention that the parameter is allowed to be optional (since required is 0), but the schema already provides a default.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the 'code' parameter with an example (000001 华夏成长). The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 applies for high schema coverage.

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 specifically states the action '获取' (get) and the resource '基金股票持仓明细' (fund stock holdings), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as fund_info or fund_nav. It also adds the analytical purpose '用于分析基金投资组合'.

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 implies a usage context for portfolio analysis but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like fund_info, fund_nav, or fund_ranking. No when-to-use/when-not-to-use or alternative tool references are provided.

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