futures_comm_js

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the source URL and return type (pandas DataFrame), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data coverage, potential errors, or rate limits. This is adequate given the annotations but not rich.

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 structured as a docstring with a title line, URL, and parameter/return documentation. It is concise but not front-loaded in a natural prose format. The title line somewhat duplicates the tool name, but the parameter and return details are useful and efficiently presented.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and strong annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not differentiate from sibling fee-related tools, nor does it describe the columns or content of the returned DataFrame beyond '期货手续费数据'. The default date value is also unexplained, though it is present in the schema.

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 'date' parameter (0% coverage), but the description compensates by specifying the format (YYYYMMDD) and providing an example ('20250213'). This gives the agent clear guidance on constructing valid input, which is essential for a single-parameter tool.

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 states the tool provides futures fee data from Jin10 Finance (金十财经-期货手续费) and includes a URL, but it lacks a clear action verb like 'get' or 'list'. It does indicate the resource and data type, but does not distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like 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 such as futures_fees_info or futures_comm_info. The description only provides parameter format and return type, leaving the agent without context for choosing this tool among its many siblings.

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