futures_display_main_sina

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already establish that this is a safe read-only operation. The description adds the source URL and the return type, which gives some context, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data update frequency, pagination, or any quirks. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the added info is minimal.

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 not overly verbose, but it repeats the same phrase '新浪主力连续合约品种一览表' in both the title line and the :return line, which is redundant. The URL and docstring format provide structure, but the repetition wastes a little space without adding value.

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?

The description does not fully specify what the returned DataFrame contains beyond the generic 'main continuous contract varieties list'. It does not list columns, describe the nature of the data (e.g., real-time vs. historical), or clarify how it differs from futures_main_sina. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide more detail to enable correct use, but it remains vague.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4 according to the rubric. There are no parameter details to explain, and the schema is empty, so the description is not required to compensate for missing parameter information. The description adequately covers the absence of parameters.

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 essentially a noun phrase 'Sina main continuous contract varieties list' that restates the tool name in Chinese without a clear action verb like 'fetch' or 'get'. It includes a return type (pandas.DataFrame) which implies data retrieval, but it does not specify the operation explicitly. It also fails to distinguish itself from the sibling tool futures_main_sina, which appears to serve a similar purpose.

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 information about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess among the many similar futures-related tools. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over futures_main_sina or other spot/realtime tools.

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