futures_hist_table_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the data source (Eastmoney) and an example URL, plus the return type. However, it does not disclose what the table contains (e.g., columns, scope) or any behavioral nuances such as whether it is historical or static, which the tool name 'hist' suggests.

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 short and contains no filler: a title, a source URL, and return-type annotations. Each element serves a purpose, though a sentence explaining the table's contents would improve it without hurting conciseness.

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 no-parameter tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the returned table actually contains (e.g., columns, which exchanges, whether it is a static mapping or historical), nor does it mention the 'hist' aspect despite the tool name. Without an output schema, the vague return statement is insufficient for an agent to understand the result set.

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 zero parameters, the schema is trivially covered. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and states the output is an exchange-variety comparison table, providing minimal but relevant information about the data shape. The baseline of 4 for zero parameters is appropriate.

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 consists of the title, a sample URL, and a return-type line that essentially restates the title. There is no explicit verb indicating what the function does (e.g., fetch, get, retrieve). The core purpose is largely tautological: 'exchange-variety comparison table' repeats the tool's name and title.

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 the many futures-related alternatives, such as futures_hist_em or futures_contract_detail_em. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent without selection context.

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