futures_contract_info_cffex

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 agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal context: it returns a pandas.DataFrame with trading parameter summary, and provides a source URL. However, the URL points to GFEX, not CFFEX, which is a potential source of confusion. No information about rate limits, data freshness, or error behavior is provided.

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 and front-loaded with the title and URL. The Python docstring format is recognizable and the parameter/return info is clearly labeled. However, the URL is inconsistent with the tool name (gfex vs cffex) and the title line repeats the annotation title, which adds a little noise. Overall, it is concise but not perfectly clean.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description gives enough to understand the basic purpose and return type, but it lacks details about the content of the DataFrame and the exact meaning of 'trading parameters'. The URL mismatch also reduces confidence in the tool's data source. Without an output schema, more context about the return structure would be helpful.

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 only parameter, 'date', is described in Chinese as '查询日期' (query date), which adds basic meaning beyond the schema's type and default. The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain what the parameter is for, but it does not specify the expected format (e.g., YYYYMMDD), although the default '20240228' implies it. This is a minimal but adequate explanation.

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 identifies the resource as '中国金融期货交易所-数据-交易参数' (China Financial Futures Exchange - Data - Trading Parameters), which indicates the tool retrieves trading parameters for CFFEX. However, there is no explicit action verb; the docstring's ':return: 交易参数汇总查询' is a noun phrase. The URL (gfex.com.cn) contradicts the tool name (cffex), creating confusion about which exchange is intended. It also does not distinguish this tool from sibling futures_contract_info tools beyond the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preferred scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons to other futures_contract_info_* tools. The only context is the title and URL, which imply CFFEX-specific data, but this is not explicitly stated in a way that helps an agent decide.

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