fund_nav

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

No annotations exist; the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits. The pricing info is present but insufficient for behavioral understanding.

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 very brief (two lines), which is concise but lacks structure (no sections or formatting). Every word earns its place, but the brevity sacrifices explanatory depth.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., NAV value, date, currency). It fails to do so, leaving the agent guessing. The tool is simple but the description is incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% (one parameter fully described in schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to the 'fundCode' parameter such as expected format or examples, but schema already provides the essential info.

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 action ('查询' = query) and resource ('基金净值' = fund NAV), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling finance tools like stock_price or crypto_price, though the specific domain (funds) is apparent.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions provided. The description lacks context for selection among similar finance tools.

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