futures_income

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only lists data types retrieved but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or any side effects. For a data retrieval tool, this is insufficient.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the main action. Including examples in parentheses is helpful, but it could be structured more clearly. Nearly every part earns its place.

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?

Despite 5 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description lacks context about return format, pagination, date-range behavior, and default limits. For a data retrieval tool, this information is critical for correct usage, and the description does not provide it.

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%, meaning each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 tool's purpose: retrieving futures income history, with specific examples like funding rate, realized PnL, and commission. It uses a specific verb '获取' (get) and resource '收益历史', effectively distinguishing it from siblings like futures_account_balance or futures_account_report.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. With many sibling tools, the lack of usage guidelines forces the agent to infer from the name alone.

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