问财选期货期权（同花顺问财）

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the data source and the supported screening dimensions, but it does not disclose output format, whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, or any query limitations.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the purpose is stated first and the data source second. It is appropriately concise, though at the cost of missing usage and behavior details.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves important gaps: return value shape, how page/limit affect results, and when to use this tool vs. data-query siblings. The source link helps but does not make this complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of multi-condition screening aligns with the 'query' parameter but adds no detail beyond the schema, which already documents query, page, and limit.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a screening/selection tool for futures and options using multiple conditions such as quotes, volatility, production/sales, member positions, and exercise data. It distinguishes itself from generic query siblings by the 'select' verb and 'futures/options' scope, but it does not explicitly compare itself to related tools like query_futures_data or select_astock.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The description only restates what the tool does and its data source; an agent must infer when to choose this over query_futures_data or the other select_* tools.

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