获取基金排行榜

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It claims support for time period filtering that is not present in the input schema, and it does not disclose output format or other behavioral details. This internal inconsistency reduces 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, concise sentence and is front-loaded. However, the mention of time period filtering is inaccurate and does not earn its place, slightly reducing the score from a perfect 5.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema). The description gives a basic idea of what it does and mentions indicators like yield and scale, but it omits return format and leaves the temporal filtering discrepancy unresolved, making it incomplete for an agent to fully rely on.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the only parameter 'type' with a description listing allowed values, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning to the parameter itself and introduces an unsupported time period attribute.

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 '获取不同类型基金的排行榜数据' (gets ranking data for different types of funds), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling fund tools like fund_info, fund_nav, and fund_holdings by focusing on rankings.

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 usage context is implied (for retrieving fund rankings), but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided. The mention of filtering by time period is unsupported by the schema, creating potential confusion about how to use the tool.

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