futures_comex_inventory

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds the source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like data frequency, historical depth, or API limitations. It offers some context beyond annotations but not rich behavioral detail.

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 compact at five lines, each serving a distinct purpose (title, URL, param, return, rtype). It is reasonably structured with docstring conventions, though the simultaneous use of :return and :rtype is slightly redundant. The key information is front-loaded with the title and URL.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it gives allowed parameter values and the return type. However, it does not describe what the returned COMEX inventory data contains (e.g., columns, date range), nor does it differentiate itself from the many other inventory-related tools in the sibling list. It lacks contextual completeness for an agent to make fully informed decisions.

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?

The schema provides a single `symbol` parameter with no description and no enum, giving 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by explicitly stating the allowed values: choice of {'黄金', '白银'}, and provides the default value via the schema. This gives the agent enough semantic meaning to select a valid parameter value.

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 providing COMEX inventory data from East Money's data center, with a direct URL to the source page. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being COMEX-specific, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'gets', relying instead on the noun phrase 'COMEX库存数据'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative inventory tools such as futures_inventory_em or futures_inventory_99. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or explicitly state when this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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