get_cffex_option_quotes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds the real-time nature and return fields. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default page size, or any other operational constraints beyond what annotations provide.

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, tightly-wound sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and content without any filler. It is fully front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple one-parameter schema and annotations, the description sufficiently explains the tool's output (list with latest price, change, open interest). It lacks details on pagination defaults or relationship to sibling option tools, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the only parameter (pageSize), so the description adds no extra semantic value. The description does not mention pagination or provide any context beyond the schema.

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 retrieves real-time CFFEX option quotes (stock index options) and lists included fields like latest price, change, and open interest. It distinguishes itself through the '中金所' (CFFEX) reference, though it does not explicitly compare with overlapping sibling tools like get_index_option_spot.

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 when real-time CFFEX stock index option quotes are needed, but it provides no explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives. No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over similar option quote tools.

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