get_futures_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it falls short. It implies a read operation but never confirms read-only-ness, does not describe what 'statistics' includes, whether the range is inclusive, or any rate/pagination behavior. 'Statistics' is the only behavioral hint and it is undefined.

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?

One tight sentence with the resource and scoping constraints front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but structurally it is clean.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the description should carry more behavioral and parameter context than it does for a 3-param tool; it is minimally viable but not complete.

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 description must compensate. It does map all three parameters to meaning — contract_code, start_date, end_date via 'date range' — but adds no format details (date syntax, contract code format, inclusive/exclusive bounds, end_date defaulting to null behavior). Partial compensation warrants a 3.

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?

Specific verb+resource: retrieves futures contract statistics scoped by contract code and date range. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_option_contract and search_futures_trades by naming the resource (contract statistics) rather than trades. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings in text, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The agent gets no signal on when to prefer this over search_futures_trades or get_derivatives_board; usage is only implied by the word 'Get' and the statistics framing.

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