futures_spot_sys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety behavior. It adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the fact that the data comes from a specific website page, which provides useful context. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as historical depth or data frequency.

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 well-structured with :param and :return tags. It includes only essential info: title, source URL, parameter meanings, and return type. No fluff or redundant content.

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?

Given the tool has only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers basic usage but lacks detail on the structure of the returned DataFrame or any edge cases (e.g., what happens if an invalid symbol is given). The source URL provides some context, but overall the description is minimally 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full weight for parameter meaning. It explains that symbol is a futures product (e.g., 铜) and indicator choices are enumerated as {"市场价格", "基差率", "主力基差"}. This is sufficient to understand what each parameter does, though it could provide more detail on valid symbol values.

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 is a title and docstring rather than a clear verb phrase. It identifies the resource as a spot-futures chart from 100ppi.com, but does not explicitly state what the tool does (e.g., 'Fetches' or 'Returns'). It is distinguishable from siblings only by the source name, not by a clear 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over the many sibling tools (e.g., futures_spot_price, futures_spot_price_daily). No alternative tools are mentioned, nor are any exclusions stated. The URL is given but does not clarify use cases.

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