futures_foreign_hist

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict these. It adds the data source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame), but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as date range limits or pagination. The additional context is useful but 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 concise and structured as a docstring with a title, URL, parameter explanation, and return type. It avoids redundancy and front-loads the key information. The only minor issue is the repetition of '历史行情数据-日频率' but overall it is efficient.

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 data-retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the data source, parameter semantics, and return type. However, it does not detail the DataFrame structure (e.g., columns like OHLCV) or date range, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema. The presence of annotations and the URL partially mitigate this gap.

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 provides the parameter name, type, and default value ('ZSD'). The description adds meaningful semantics: it explains that 'symbol' is a foreign futures code and points to a separate function for obtaining all valid codes. This 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 clearly states the tool provides foreign futures historical daily data (外盘期货-历史行情数据-日频率). It identifies the resource and data frequency, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'. The name and sibling tools like futures_foreign_commodity_realtime and futures_foreign_detail suggest differentiation, but the description doesn't explicitly distinguish them.

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 explains how to obtain valid symbol codes by referencing ak.futures_foreign_commodity_subscribe_exchange_symbol(), which is a useful prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like real-time quotes or detailed foreign futures data, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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