futures_hist_daily_cffex

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds only a source URL and return type, but no behavioral caveats such as date format requirements, data availability constraints, or potential errors. It does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond what annotations provide.

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 avoids wordiness, but it follows a rigid docstring template with a title, URL, and param/return lines. It lacks a clear one-sentence summary or examples, making it minimally adequate rather than well-structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what data is returned, but it only states 'exchange daily trading data' and pandas.DataFrame. It does not list columns, contract scope, or data granularity, leaving the agent without enough detail to understand the tool's full output.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The only parameter documentation is 'date: 交易日' (trading day), which merely restates the field name without specifying format (e.g., YYYYMMDD), valid ranges, or meaning beyond the default value. This does not add meaningful semantic value.

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 daily trading data from the China Financial Futures Exchange (CFFEX), with a source URL. However, it does not distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like get_cffex_daily or futures_settle_cffex, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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. It only lists a parameter and return type, with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. Usage context is entirely absent.

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