fund-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('获取的知识库列表信息') without mentioning permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the return format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema.

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 Chinese phrase, which is concise but under-specified. It's front-loaded but lacks necessary detail. While not verbose, it fails to provide essential information, making it inefficient in conveying value.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameters, or return values, leaving the agent unable to use it effectively. This is a low-tier description for a non-trivial tool.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no information about the parameters (kw, pageSize, pageNum), their meanings, formats, or usage. With 3 undocumented parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 '获取的知识库列表信息' (Get knowledge base list information) restates the tool name 'fund.knoewledge' in Chinese, making it tautological. It specifies a verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('知识库列表信息' - knowledge base list information), but doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'fund.echo' or 'fund.stock_search'. The purpose is vague about what exactly is being retrieved.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fund.echo' or 'fund.stock_search'. The description offers no context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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