查看模拟盘盈亏

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'calculates' P/L but does not mention that it is read-only, whether it requires existing positions, what data source is used, or how often it updates. The behavioral traits are not disclosed beyond the basic computation.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's function with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning, achieving optimal conciseness.

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 (zero params, no output schema), so the description does not need to cover complex inputs or return formats. However, it does not specify what the output looks like (e.g., total P/L, per-position breakdown, or currency), which is a gap for an agent needing to interpret the tool's result in a workflow.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings, and the schema already covers all (none) parameters. There is no ambiguity or missing parameter context to penalize.

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 '计算当前所有模拟持仓的实时盈亏情况' (calculates real-time P/L of all current simulated positions), providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like portfolio_add (adding positions) and portfolio_chart (charting), so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 usage (viewing portfolio P/L) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as portfolio_chart or portfolio_add. It lacks any 'when not to use' or comparison to sibling tools, leaving the selection partly to the agent's inference.

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