get_futures_inventory

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds that it returns historical changes (time series) and uses a given symbol, which is helpful context. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default date range, or response format, so it provides only modest value beyond annotations.

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, succinct sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and output. No filler or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple read-only data retrieval tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description and schema together provide sufficient context. It lacks detail on return structure or edge cases, but given the simplicity and annotations, it is adequately 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 100% for all three parameters (symbol, pageSize, startDate), so the schema fully documents parameter meanings and format. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('期货仓单/库存数据' - futures warehouse receipt/inventory data), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_futures_kline (price data) and get_futures_inventory_symbols (symbol list). It states the output as historical inventory changes for a specified variety.

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 clear context: use this when you need historical inventory/warehouse receipt changes for a commodity. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the purpose is obvious and the schema references get_futures_inventory_symbols for symbol acquisition, aiding correct selection.

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