query_futures

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors itself. It clearly states the side effect of writing to file_path as CSV and the error policy for minute data coverage ('explicit error with guidance, no silent degradation'). It also mentions special start-date caveats for IF0, which helps agents reason about data availability.

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 reasonably compact and front-loads the purpose, but the mixed-language style and dense run-on clauses reduce readability. It could be structured as bullets for kind=hist and kind=contracts, and several bounded parentheticals make it hard to scan.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior (query type, data coverage, file side effect, error disclosure). Remaining details of params like trade_date and freq live in the schema, which agents can consult directly, so the essential context for correct usage is mostly present.

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%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond enum labels: it explains what kind=hist output is (continuous/variety daily history), what kind=contracts returns (variety contract lists like IM/RB), and adds date constraints (IF0 only 2017-01-17 onward, minute requires start/end with ~4 trading days). This is far beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Statement 'Query China futures' immediately identifies the verb and resource, and the description separates the two modes (kind=hist vs kind=contracts) and the CSV output, clearly distinguishing this from sibling query_stock/query_bond/query_index tools.

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 gives concrete usage conditions: which kind to use, that minute-period data requires start/end dates, and that coverage errors are surfaced loudly rather than silently degraded. It doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools, but the rules for choosing hist vs contracts and data coverage are sufficiently explicit.

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