futures_stock_shfe_js

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds significant behavioral context: the publication schedule (only on the last trading day) and the return type ('pandas.Series'). It also includes the source URL, which provides traceability. No contradictions with 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 compact, consisting of a title line, a source URL, and a structured docstring. It is front-loaded with the key resource name and avoids redundant fluff. The docstring format is well-organized and easy to parse, though it could be slightly more concise by omitting the URL.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what data is returned (inventory weekly report), when it is available (last trading day), and the return type (pandas.Series). Combined with the annotations, the context is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has one parameter `date` with no description (schema coverage 0%). The description compensates with a docstring: ':param date: 交易日' (trading day) and clarifies that data is only published on the last trading day. The default value '20240419' also implies the expected format (YYYYMMDD), adding practical meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a clear resource name: '金十财经-上海期货交易所指定交割仓库库存周报' (Jin10 Finance - SHFE designated delivery warehouse inventory weekly report), which identifies the specific data being retrieved. Though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', the docstring and URL make the tool's function unambiguous. It is reasonably distinct from siblings like futures_shfe_warehouse_receipt, but does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 one usage constraint: '库存周报只在每周的最后一个交易日公布数据' (the weekly report is only published on the last trading day of the week), guiding when data is available. However, it does not discuss alternatives or provide a 'when not to use' comparison with other futures tools, leaving the usage context partially implicit.

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