futures_shfe_warehouse_receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the data source URL and return type (dict), but does not disclose behaviors like handling of non-trading days, potential delays, or the structure of the returned data. It does not contradict annotations.

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 brief, using a standard docstring format with :param, :type, :return, and :rtype lines. It efficiently conveys the source URL, parameter details, and return type. However, it is entirely in Chinese, which slightly reduces readability for English-speaking agents, but it is still well-structured.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema. The description covers the data source, parameter format, and return type, which is adequate for selecting and invoking the tool. However, it lacks detail on the structure of the returned dict, which would be helpful for processing the result. Overall, it is complete enough but has clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well by explaining ':param date: 交易日' (trading day) with an example format '20200702'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default fields, clearly defining the required date format.

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's title '上海期货交易所指定交割仓库期货仓单日报' clearly identifies the tool as retrieving the SHFE designated delivery warehouse receipts daily report. The :return: line specifies it returns the warehouse receipt daily data for the specified date, which is a specific verb+resource+scope statement.

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 implies usage for SHFE warehouse receipt data by date, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternative tools like futures_warehouse_receipt_czce or futures_warehouse_receipt_dce. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidelines are merely implied.

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