list_futures_market_statuses

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this—it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what 'market statuses' includes (e.g., open/closed times, holidays). With annotations covering safety, the bar is lower, but the description misses opportunities to clarify behavior like filtering or output format.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's overly brief and under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters and complex sibling relationships, suggesting conciseness at the expense of necessary detail rather than optimal brevity.

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?

Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, annotations only covering read-only status, and an output schema present (which might help with returns), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter usage, behavioral nuances, or differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation in this rich context.

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 0%, so parameters like 'product_code_any_of', 'product_code', 'limit', 'sort', and 'params' are undocumented in the schema. The description provides no parameter information, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It doesn't explain what these parameters do, their formats, or how they affect results, leaving critical usage details unclear.

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 'Get market statuses for futures products' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('market statuses for futures products'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_market_status' or 'get_futures_snapshot'. It specifies 'futures products' which helps narrow the domain, but lacks detail about what 'market statuses' entails.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_market_status' (likely for general markets) and 'get_futures_snapshot' (likely for real-time data), the description offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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