get_global_futures_kline

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, but it adds no behavioral information beyond what the schema already provides. It does not mention pagination, default date ranges, output format, or any special constraints, so the annotation carries most of the safety and behavior signaling burden.

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, front-loaded Chinese sentence with no wasted words or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for its core purpose, though it could have used the space to add distinguishing guidance or behavioral details.

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?

While the K-line concept is generally well understood, the description does not explain the return format, default behavior when startDate/endDate are omitted, or how this tool differs from other kline tools. Given no output schema, a bit more detail would make it complete, but the core data type and parameters are sufficiently clear to be minimally viable.

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 already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, including the period enum and date format examples. The description only repeats the period values ('日/周/月') already in the schema, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 action ('获取' / get) and the resource ('全球期货历史K线数据' / global futures historical K-line data), with the period scope noted in parentheses. It is specific enough to identify the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from the closely named sibling get_futures_kline or get_global_futures_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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer this over get_futures_kline or get_global_futures_spot, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and generic description.

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