获取期货价格

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that data is historical and includes OHLC, volume, and other technical indicators. However, it does not mention data frequency, date range handling, return ordering, or that the operation is read-only, which leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 in Chinese that efficiently conveys purpose, scope, and key output fields. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing; every segment adds useful information.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview but omits practical details such as whether data is daily or intraday, how the 'main contract' is determined, and the response format. These gaps are not critical but make the description less complete than it could be.

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%, and both parameters ('limit' and 'symbol') have clear descriptions with defaults and suggested values. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('获取国内期货主力合约的历史价格数据') and clearly identifies the resource: historical OHLCV data for main futures contracts. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like futures_basis or futures_positions by focusing on price data with technical indicators, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to prefer it over related tools such as futures_inventory or futures_basis. There are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions or alternative references, leaving the agent to infer suitability from the description alone.

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