futures_global_spot_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the return is a pandas.DataFrame with market data, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as refresh frequency or data scope, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 like a docstring, with source, URL, return description, and return type. Every line provides some context. The URL adds minor redundancy but is harmless. No fluff is present.

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 no-parameter read-only spot data tool, the description is reasonably complete: it states the source (East Money), the market category (international futures), and the return format (pandas DataFrame). It lacks explicit detail on columns or data coverage, but given the minimal complexity and good annotations, it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully defines the input. With no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add param semantics. The baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving international futures market quotes from East Money (东方财富网-行情中心-期货市场-国际期货), and states the return is market data (行情数据). While it lacks an explicit verb like 'get', the meaning is clear. It distinguishes from historical futures tools by including 'spot' in the name and focusing on the quotes center, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like futures_global_hist_em.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only gives a source URL and return type, with no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or related tools. An agent has to infer usage solely from the name and context.

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