获取期货库存

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 获取 implies a non-destructive read and the scope (domestic futures, warehouse receipts) is stated. But the description discloses nothing about data source, update frequency, historical depth, or output shape — adequate for a simple read tool, yet with clear gaps.

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?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded (获取国内期货品种的仓单库存数据) and a short purpose clause appended. No wasted words, though the purpose clause is somewhat generic and the brevity leaves no room for operational detail.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with a rich schema, the definition is mostly sufficient for making a call. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent cannot anticipate return format, units (tons/lots), or data freshness — material gaps for a tool meant to inform supply-demand judgments.

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 coverage is 100%: the symbol parameter is thoroughly documented with a default value and a long list of valid varieties (原油, 沪金, 沪银, etc.). The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting.

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) and resource (国内期货品种的仓单库存数据), plus an analytical purpose (判断供需关系和价格走势). The warehouse-receipt inventory resource is inherently distinct from futures siblings like futures_prices, futures_positions, and futures_basis, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 purpose clause '用于判断供需关系和价格走势' provides an implied use context — pick this tool when analyzing supply-demand balance or price trends. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to disambiguate among the large sibling set (futures_positions, futures_basis, spot_prices, pm_comex_inventory) on its own.

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