fund-mcp

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 mentions the API source but doesn't describe any behavioral traits: no information about rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is too minimal to adequately inform an agent about how this tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 extremely concise - just one sentence with 8 Chinese characters. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, it may be too brief given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema). Every word earns its place, but more information might be needed for proper tool understanding.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that might overlap in functionality, the description is insufficiently complete. It states what the tool does at a high level but provides none of the necessary details about parameters, behavior, outputs, or differentiation from alternatives that an agent would need to use this tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 2 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'input' and 'count' parameters mean or how they should be used. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, leaving both completely undocumented. For a tool with 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, this represents a significant gap in understanding what the tool expects.

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 purpose: '搜索股票信息' (search for stock information) with the resource being stocks. It specifies the data source ('基于东方财富API' - based on East Money API), which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fund.echo or fund.knowledge, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of what makes this tool different from its siblings (fund.echo and fund.knowledge), nor any context about when this search tool would be preferred over other methods. The only contextual information is the API source, which doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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