futures_foreign_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the return is a pandas.DataFrame and that the symbol is a futures symbol, but does not disclose what fields or time periods the 'detail' covers, nor any pagination or error behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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, using a standard docstring format with a brief summary, param, and return sections. It is front-loaded with the summary and contains no filler, though it could benefit from a more descriptive opening sentence.

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 simple 1-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not describe the content of the returned 'contract detail' DataFrame or how it differs from related futures tools. There is no output schema and no explanation of coverage (e.g., which foreign exchanges or time ranges). Enough to invoke, but with clear ambiguities.

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 provides only a name, type, and default for the symbol parameter with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that the parameter is a futures symbol and points to the exact function (ak.futures_hq_subscribe_exchange_symbol) where valid symbols can be obtained. This adds meaningful semantic information beyond the schema.

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 begins with 'foreign futures contract detail data', which closely mirrors the tool name and title, providing little beyond a noun phrase. It implies the tool returns contract details for a given symbol, but lacks a clear verb or explicit differentiation from sibling tools like futures_foreign_hist or futures_contract_detail. The parameter and return lines add modest clarity.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage hint is that the symbol can be obtained from ak.futures_hq_subscribe_exchange_symbol, which is a prerequisite for the parameter, not a usage guideline. There are no 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' statements.

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