futures_foreign_commodity_subscribe_exchange_symbol

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

The description adds only the source URL and return type, which is minimal. Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent, so the safety profile is covered, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it fetches live data, caching, or how the list is derived. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still provides almost no additional 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 very short and front-loaded with the return information and a URL. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence, and the structure is a bit fragmented with the ':return' and ':rtype' lines. It earns points for brevity but loses for lack of a clear, complete statement.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description still lacks critical context. It doesn't mention that it's specifically for foreign commodity futures, what the exchange symbols look like, or how the list is intended to be used. With many sibling tools, an agent needs more context to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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?

There are zero parameters and the input schema is empty. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description doesn't mention parameters, but none exist, so no information is missing. It adequately covers the parameter story.

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 a list of quote codes that need subscription (需要订阅的行情的代码) and includes a source URL. This is clear enough to understand the core purpose, but it lacks an explicit verb and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like futures_hq_subscribe_exchange_symbol.

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 are sibling tools for foreign commodity realtime, details, and history, but no exclusions or conditions are mentioned. An agent is left without context for proper selection.

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