futures_warehouse_receipt_czce

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

With readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true already provided in annotations, the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds the source URL (http://www.czce.com.cn/...) and the return type (dict), which gives some context. However, it does not mention behavior on invalid dates, data availability, or the structure of the returned dict. It does not contradict the 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 and well-structured: a title line, a source URL, and a clear docstring with param/return sections. Each sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant or filler content. The front-loaded title immediately identifies the data domain.

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?

The tool is simple with a single parameter, and annotations provide safety info. However, there is no output schema, and the description only says the return is a dict without detailing fields or structure. It also fails to mention that the date parameter is optional with a default of '20251103' (as shown in the schema), which could affect invocation expectations. Overall, it's adequate but leaves 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the 'date' parameter, so the description fully compensates. It explicitly defines 'date' as '交易日' (trading day), provides the format example '20200702', and clarifies the type as str. This is critical information for correct invocation and goes well beyond the schema's bare property definition.

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 states the tool retrieves CZCE warehouse receipt daily data for a specified date, as shown by the title '郑州商品交易所-交易数据-仓单日报' and the return description '指定日期的仓单日报数据'. It distinguishes from siblings like futures_warehouse_receipt_dce by specifying the exchange (CZCE). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', relying on the noun phrase 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or related tools such as futures_settle_czce or futures_delivery_czce. The only contextual hint is the exchange and report name, but there is no explicit 'use when...' or 'for other exchanges use...' statement.

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