futures_settlement_price_sgx

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

The description adds no behavioral traits beyond the annotations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description merely repeats the data source URL and return type without disclosing rate limits, data freshness, or error behavior.

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 structured as a docstring with title, source URL, and param/return sections. The first line duplicates the annotation title, but the overall size is appropriate.

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 tool, the description conveys the exchange, data type, and return shape (DataFrame). However, without an output schema, it doesn't specify the DataFrame's columns or handle edge cases like non-trading dates, so completeness is modest.

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 description documents date as '交易日' (trading day), which adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare type/default. However, it doesn't specify the expected format (e.g., YYYYMMDD) beyond the default value, leaving some ambiguity.

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 identifies the resource (SGX derivatives historical settlement prices) and specifies the output: all futures products' historical settlement prices for a given trading day. It distinguishes from exchange-specific siblings by naming 新加坡交易所 (SGX). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', relying on the return statement to convey the action.

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 sets context by naming the exchange (新加坡交易所) and data type (historical settlement prices), making it obvious when to use this tool for SGX data. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the exchange name differentiates it from the many other futures_settle_* siblings.

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