futures_delivery_match_dce

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the source URL and notes the return type (pandas.DataFrame), but does not disclose details such as data volume, pagination, or any quirks about the delivery matching process. With annotations covering the core behavior, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 standard docstring structure with title, source URL, param, and return. It is not verbose, but the first line duplicates the title already present in annotations, which is slightly redundant. Overall, it is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 bears full responsibility for explaining what the returned DataFrame contains. It only says '交割配对表' (delivery matching table) without specifying columns, row content, or how to interpret the data. It also lacks examples of valid symbol values, making the tool hard to use correctly despite its simplicity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines :param symbol: as 交割品种 (delivery variety), which gives a general meaning, but does not explain valid values, code format (e.g., 'a' for a specific commodity), or how the default works. This minimal explanation is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate the parameter beyond guessing. Score reflects the lack of actionable detail.

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 that the tool returns the Dalian Commodity Exchange delivery matching table (大连商品交易所-交割配对表), which clearly identifies the specific resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like futures_delivery_dce and futures_delivery_match_czce. Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'get', the ':return:' line makes the purpose clear.

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 when to choose futures_delivery_match_dce over futures_delivery_dce or futures_delivery_match_czce, nor any context about the type of delivery data being queried. This leaves the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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