获取基金净值历史

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavior. It clarifies this is a read operation and lists returned data fields, but it does not disclose return ordering, limit semantics, or output structure. This is adequate but incomplete for full transparency.

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, data content, and purpose. Every part earns its place with no unnecessary detail.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description covers what data is returned and the general use case. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not state that it returns the most recent N records or how results are ordered, leaving minor but relevant gaps.

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 both parameters have detailed descriptions with examples and suggested ranges. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb (获取/get) with a clear resource (基金的历史净值数据/historical NAV data) and enumerates key fields (单位净值、累计净值、日增长率), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like fund_info, fund_holdings, and fund_ranking.

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 a general use case ('用于分析基金业绩表现') but no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention that other fund tools serve different purposes, so guidance is only implied.

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