获取期货持仓排名

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses that the data is limited to main contracts and institutional position rankings, which is useful behavioral scoping. However, it does not mention important behaviors such as automatic date inference, default symbol/contract handling, or data source/update cadence, leaving part of the burden unmet.

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 packed sentence that leads with the action and resource, then states the purpose. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool: it states what is returned and why to use it, and the schema covers all parameters. However, with no output schema or annotations, and without guidance on return format/ranking details or how to choose among futures-related siblings, the overall context is incomplete for fully confident 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all four parameters (date, symbol, contract, position_type). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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' and names a precise resource: '期货主力合约的机构持仓排名数据' (institutional position ranking data for main futures contracts). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like futures_prices, futures_inventory, and futures_basis, which address different data types. The stated purpose '判断主力资金动向' further clarifies the intended use.

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 an implicit usage context: use it to judge main capital movement ('用于判断主力资金动向'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools such as futures_prices, futures_inventory, or futures_basis for related but distinct needs.

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