持仓盈亏图表

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output type (ASCII bar chart) and that it shows each position's P&L, but does not mention data source, whether existing holdings are required, or any side effects or limitations.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and output format. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It could be more explicit that it relies on an existing portfolio, but the term '持仓' implies current holdings.

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 tool has no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds context about what the chart represents, which is useful, though there are no parameter details to clarify.

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's function: generating an ASCII bar chart of portfolio profit/loss, with a specific verb ('生成') and resource (持仓盈亏的 ASCII 柱状图). It distinguishes from sibling tools like draw_ascii_chart by focusing on portfolio P&L, though it does not explicitly reference alternatives.

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 intended use is implied: use when you want a visual ASCII representation of position profit/loss. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over draw_ascii_chart or portfolio_view, nor any exclusions.

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