futures_hist_em

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 well covered. The description adds the source URL and return type, but does not disclose behavioral details such as date format requirements, symbol format conventions, or potential error cases. It adds some contextual value but not rich behavioral information.

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 a compact docstring with a source URL, parameter list, and return type in a clean, structured format. Every line is informative, and there is no redundant prose or unnecessary elaboration.

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 only states that the return is a pandas DataFrame of market data, without column details. It also lacks explicit date and symbol format guidance, though the default values provide hints. The annotations and parameter list provide a baseline, but the description is not fully complete for a tool with four parameters and no schema.

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 carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It provides meaningful Chinese labels for all four parameters, including the allowed period choices ('daily', 'weekly', 'monthly'). However, it omits details like the expected date format and symbol code conventions, which are only revealed through the default values.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving futures market data from Eastmoney, includes the source URL, and lists the key parameters for symbol, period, and date range. It clearly conveys the resource and operation, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'fetches'. It is distinguishable from sibling futures history tools by the Eastmoney source and the combination of parameters.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling futures history tools, and it does not mention alternatives or exclusions. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and parameter list, which is insufficient given the large number of similar tools.

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