futures_contract_info_czce

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the source URL and the generic return type 'pandas.DataFrame'. It does not describe data freshness, pagination, or any limitations, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 docstring pattern, with a title, URL, and param/return sections. It avoids unnecessary filler, but some content (like the raw URL) may not be essential for an AI agent. Overall, it is concise and not bloated.

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 must explain what the returned DataFrame contains. '交易参数汇总查询' is ambiguous and does not describe columns, contract identifiers, or data granularity. The date format is also unspecified. For a futures contract info tool, this is incomplete and could lead to incorrect use.

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 has 0% description coverage for the 'date' parameter. The description provides ':param date: 查询日期' and ':type date: str', which adds basic meaning ('query date') but lacks required format (e.g., YYYYMMDD), allowed ranges, or whether it is optional. The default '20240228' in the schema implies format, but the description itself does not clarify it sufficiently.

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 is vague: it provides a title '郑州商品交易所-交易数据-参考数据' and a return description '交易参数汇总查询' (trading parameter summary query), but no explicit action like 'retrieve' or 'query'. It does not clearly state what the tool does beyond the name itself, and it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like futures_contract_info_dce or futures_contract_info_cffex.

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. No mention of exchange-specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only includes a URL and docstring param/return info, which does not help an agent decide when to invoke it.

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