futures_hog_core

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, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as data granularity, rate limits, or the meaning of the DataFrame contents. It does not contradict the annotations, but provides no extra value beyond them.

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 front-loaded with the title and URL, followed by docstring-style param/return lines. It is not verbose, but it repeats the same '玄田数据-核心数据' phrase multiple times and the URL insertion feels abrupt. The structure is functional but not polished.

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?

The tool returns a pandas.DataFrame, but the description never specifies what columns, indices, or data content the frame contains. With no output schema and a vague name, the agent cannot determine what 'core data' includes. This is especially problematic given the many similar hog data tools, making the description incomplete for reliable use.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by specifying the allowed values for symbol ('外三元', '内三元', '土杂猪') and its type (str). This is crucial because the schema only shows a default value without an enum. The description adds real semantic value, though it does not explain the meaning of each pig type.

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 essentially repeats the title '玄田数据-核心数据' without adding a clear verb or action. It mentions a URL and parameter choices, but never states what 'core data' actually contains or what operation is performed. This borders on tautology, relying on the tool name and title to imply purpose.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling hog-related tools (e.g., futures_hog_cost, futures_hog_supply, spot_hog_soozhu). There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is appropriate.

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