futures_inventory_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds contextual value beyond annotations by specifying the exact source URL, the fact that it returns a pandas DataFrame, and the accepted symbol formats. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful additional behavioral context.

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 compact and follows a docstring-like format, with title, URL, param, and return sections. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool, though the URL is repeated twice and the structure could be streamlined. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: source, parameter semantics, and return type. It is sufficient for an agent to successfully invoke the tool, though it lacks details about date ranges or data structure. Given the simplicity, this level of completeness is adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'symbol' accepts both commodity codes and Chinese names, and points to a URL for the list of Chinese names. This adds some semantic meaning, but it doesn't explain the default value 'a', provide examples, or clarify what code format is expected, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 futures inventory data from Eastmoney's data center for a given symbol, as shown by '东方财富网-数据中心-期货库存数据' and ':return: 指定品种的库存数据'. It names the resource and source, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like futures_inventory_99 or futures_shfe_warehouse_receipt, so it lacks the sibling contrast needed for a 5.

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 description only explains parameter input (supports codes and Chinese names) and provides a reference URL, but does not mention when this Eastmoney inventory data is preferable over other inventory tools. It fails to give any context for tool selection.

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