futures_contract_info_shfe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the source URL, the fact that the date is a trading day, and the return type (pandas.DataFrame), but does not disclose potential caveats like data availability, invalid date handling, or timezone considerations. It adds some value beyond annotations but not extensive behavioral 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 and structured with a source URL, parameter documentation, and return type. It is not verbose, but the first line repeats the title annotation and the return line repeats '交易参数汇总查询' without elaboration. Overall, it is efficient and each section serves a purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify the return data. It only states that the result is a pandas.DataFrame containing a 'trading parameters summary query,' which is vague—no columns, contract scope, or data coverage are described. The annotations provide safety context, but the description lacks sufficient detail for the agent to fully interpret the result. It is minimally adequate for a simple date-parameterized query.

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?

With one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explicitly documenting the 'date' parameter as '查询日期; 交易日' and specifying its type. It adds meaning beyond the schema, and the default value suggests the expected format. However, it does not explicitly state the YYYYMMDD format or whether the date must be a past trading day, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 tool as a 'Trading Parameters Summary Query' for the Shanghai Futures Exchange with a specific source URL. The name and description clearly scope it to SHFE, differentiating it from sibling tools like futures_contract_info_cffex. However, there is no explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch', and the first line largely duplicates the title annotation, so it falls short of a perfect purpose statement.

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. It only mentions a date parameter and return type, and does not reference sibling tools or exclusions (e.g., 'use for SHFE contract parameters, not for other exchanges'). The absence of any usage context leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.

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