futures_contract_detail_em

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds a return type (pandas.DataFrame) and a reference URL but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, data coverage, or limitations. Given the annotation coverage, it provides minimal but non-redundant context.

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 short but mixes Chinese text, a URL, and docstring-style lines without a clear front-loaded summary. It is under-specified rather than concise, and the structure is not optimized for quick agent scanning.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what '期货合约详情' includes, but it only mentions 'pandas.DataFrame' without specifying fields or content. Combined with many similar futures tools, the lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect from the tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It says 'symbol: 合约' (contract) and type str, with 'v2602F' shown in the URL as an example. This is minimal and does not clarify the expected symbol format, possible exchange conventions, or how the agent should construct a valid symbol.

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?

Description states '查询期货合约详情' (query futures contract details), which clearly identifies the operation and resource. However, it does not explain how this tool differs from the nearly identical sibling 'futures_contract_detail' or what the '_em' suffix denotes, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar futures tools. The description includes a URL and parameter documentation but does not mention preferred contexts, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving tool selection ambiguous.

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