futures_foreign_commodity_realtime

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the data source (Sina) and return type (DataFrame), but does not disclose column contents, real-time latency, or any special behavior. This is acceptable for a simple read-only quote tool.

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 structured as a docstring with title, URL, param, and return lines. It is compact and to the point, with each line serving a purpose. The URL is a minor redundancy but does not detract significantly.

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 realtime quote tool with no output schema, the description covers the data source, parameter acquisition, and return type. However, it does not describe the DataFrame columns or any data specifics, leaving some ambiguity about the result contents. It is minimally complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 only specifies symbol as string or array with no description. The description adds that symbol is obtained via a specific subscription function and can be list or str, providing crucial guidance for valid values. This partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 '新浪-外盘期货-行情数据' (Sina overseas futures market data) and includes the source URL, making the data source and topic clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate realtime quotes from sibling tools like futures_foreign_hist or futures_foreign_detail; the generic term '行情数据' weakens the distinction.

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 only explains how to obtain the symbol parameter (via ak.futures_hq_subscribe_exchange_symbol()), but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as futures_foreign_hist or futures_foreign_detail. The referenced function name may also be inconsistent with the sibling futures_foreign_commodity_subscribe_exchange_symbol, adding potential confusion.

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