获取期现价差

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the basic behavior of fetching basis data, but does not explain how the basis is calculated, what time range or data granularity is returned, or whether any limitations exist. This is minimally adequate for a read-only data retrieval tool but lacks meaningful behavioral context beyond the core function.

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 sentence that starts with the action and object, then adds a concise purpose clause. There is no redundant or filler content, making it appropriately sized 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify what the user can expect in return. It mentions '基差数据' (basis data) but does not specify whether the output is a single value or time series, what units are used, or how multiple symbols are handled. This leaves a notable gap for a tool with no structured output metadata.

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 both parameters, so the schema already documents 'date' and 'symbol' thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters themselves, so it stays at the baseline score of 3 as per the rubric.

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 states a specific verb ('获取' / get) and resource ('期货与现货价格的基差数据' / basis data between futures and spot prices), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like futures_prices and spot_prices by explicitly combining the two into basis data, and adds the purpose of judging market expectations and arbitrage opportunities.

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 when to use the tool ('用于判断市场预期和套利机会' / for judging market expectations and arbitrage opportunities), providing a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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