futures_contract_info_ine

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 context that the date parameter is a trading day and that the return is a pandas.DataFrame, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential network dependencies, rate limits, or exactly what data fields are returned.

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 concise and well-structured with a title line, source URL, and parameter/return documentation. It avoids unnecessary fluff. The first line merely repeats the annotation title, which is slightly redundant, but overall the structure is clean and scannable.

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 single-parameter query tool, the description is adequate: it provides the source URL, explains the date parameter, and states the return type. However, it does not describe what '交易参数' (trading parameters) includes, nor does it list any output columns. Since there is no output schema, this additional detail would enhance completeness.

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 carries the full burden. It clearly states ':param date: 查询日期; 交易日' (query date; trading day), which explains the semantic meaning of the parameter beyond the schema's type and default. However, it does not specify the exact date format (though the default '20241129' implies YYYYMMDD).

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 it is a '交易参数汇总查询' (trading parameter summary query) for the Shanghai International Energy Exchange, which clearly identifies the tool's function. The resource (INE futures trading parameters) is specific, though the verb is implied rather than explicit. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like futures_contract_info_shfe, relying on the tool name for 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 alternatives is provided. The description does not mention exclusions or alternative tools for other exchanges, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and the China INE context.

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