futures_index_ccidx

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the daily frequency and the source website, which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not explain what data is returned (e.g., columns, history depth, or whether it is a complete time series).

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 essential identity and source. It uses a docstring format with param/return sections, which is conventional and parseable. There is minor redundancy (the title line repeats in the return line), but overall it is efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description fails to specify the structure of the returned DataFrame, including columns, date range, or how the symbol parameter affects the data. Although the single parameter is simple, an agent would not know what to expect from the result. The lack of return-value detail is a significant gap for a data retrieval 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 schema only defines 'symbol' as a string with a default value, providing no description or enum. The description compensates by explicitly listing the two allowed choices: '中证商品期货指数' and '中证商品期货价格指数'. This is meaningful guidance beyond the schema, though it does not explain the difference between the two symbols.

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 providing 中证商品指数 (China Securities commodity index) data at daily frequency, along with a source URL. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', making it more of a label than a clear action statement. It does distinguish itself from sibling tools by naming a specific index family and frequency.

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 sibling list includes many other futures and index tools, but the description gives no comparison or selection criteria. The only hint is the source URL, which does not help an agent choose between related tools.

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