futures_exchange_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It warns about the potential for an extremely large response (55k+ rows) when no symbol is passed, which is a critical behavioral trait. It does not describe pagination, authentication needs, or rate limits, but the warning about data volume is valuable.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds a critical warning with an emoji. Every word earns its place, with no fluff.

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 the single parameter (optional), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It mentions the type of data (trading rules, pair info, fees, min order) but does not specify the return format or list common fields. The warning about response size is helpful, but more detail would improve completeness.

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%, and the schema description already explains the symbol parameter and the warning. The tool description adds value by mentioning specific fields returned (fee rates, min order quantity), providing concrete examples beyond the schema's description.

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 states the verb '获取' (get) and resource '期货交易所交易规则和交易对信息' (futures exchange trading rules and trading pair info), with examples like '费率、最小下单量等' (fee rates, min order quantity). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on accounts, orders, trades, or indicators.

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 explicit guidance on when to pass the 'symbol' parameter, warning that omitting it returns 55k+ rows causing a large response, and strongly recommending to pass a symbol. However, it does not compare this tool to alternatives like futures_prices or futures_trades for related but different data.

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