futures_comm_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the source URL and allowed parameter values, but does not disclose behavioral quirks such as data freshness, pagination, rate limits, or potential errors. With annotations covering the main safety aspects, the extra context merits a middle score, but fails to provide deeper behavioral transparency.

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 and follows a standard docstring format with title, URL, parameters, and return info. It is appropriately sized, though the Chinese text and redundant title phrase could be slightly streamlined. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter, the description provides the parameter choices, source URL, and return type. However, it lacks details about the DataFrame structure (columns, index) and any caveats about the data (e.g., real-time vs historical). Since there is no output schema, this missing information leaves a gap in understanding what the tool returns.

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 input schema has no description for the 'symbol' parameter (0% coverage) and no enum. The description fully compensates by listing all allowed values: '所有' and the six Chinese exchange names. This is essential for correct invocation. It also specifies the type as str, aligning with the schema.

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 provides futures trading fees (期货手续费) from 9qihuo.com, with a URL and return type. It is specific about the data source and content, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'. It distinguishes from siblings by the unique source URL and Chinese title, but does not explicitly compare to similar futures fee tools such as futures_fees_info.

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 alternatives. The description only lists the parameter choices and return type, with no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. No comparison to sibling tools is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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