futures_symbol_mark

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame), which provides some context, but it does not explain data freshness, structure, or any other behavioral traits beyond what annotations already convey.

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 and includes a useful source URL and return type, but it is somewhat redundant: the phrase '期货的品种和代码映射' appears both in the main description and in the :return line. It is not front-loaded with an action verb and is presented as unformatted Chinese text, though it is still concise.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description does specify the return type as DataFrame, which is helpful. However, it lacks details about the mapping's columns, format, or how it relates to other futures tools, leaving some ambiguity about the exact output and use case. For a simple parameterless mapping tool, this is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description correctly does not attempt to explain parameters because there are none, and the empty schema is fully descriptive in that regard.

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 states it provides a mapping of futures varieties and codes ('期货的品种和代码映射'), which is a specific resource and clearly distinguishes it as a symbol/name mapping tool. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch' and is phrased as a noun phrase, making it slightly weaker than a clear action 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as futures_comm_info or futures_contract_info. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.

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