futures_gfex_warehouse_receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the source URL and return type but no additional behavioral context such as data availability or error handling.

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 relatively concise, with the core purpose front-loaded. The URL and docstring-like elements add a bit of clutter but still keep it compact and readable.

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 one-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, parameter format, and return type. It does not describe output fields, but no output schema exists and the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting the date parameter with meaning ('交易日'), format, and an explicit example ('20240122'). This is exactly what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 retrieves Guangzhou Futures Exchange (GFEX) warehouse receipt daily data, with a specific resource and exchange. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like futures_shfe_warehouse_receipt or futures_warehouse_receipt_czce by naming GFEX explicitly.

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 when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The GFEX identifier gives implicit usage context, but there is no mention of exclusions or when to prefer this over sibling tools for other exchanges.

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