futures_warehouse_receipt_dce

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the official DCE URL and return type (dict), but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, or data structure details. No contradiction 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 concise but includes a redundant first line that exactly repeats the title, and the URL is helpful but not essential. The docstring structure is clear and easy to parse, making it mostly efficient.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meaning. However, it does not describe the structure or content of the returned dict, which would be helpful since no output schema is available. The sibling context clarifies exchange-specific scope, but the description itself lacks depth on return values.

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 provides no description for the date parameter, but the docstring fully compensates by explaining it is the trading day, giving a concrete format example ('20200702'), and specifying the type as string. This is particularly valuable given the 0% schema description coverage.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving the Dalian Commodity Exchange (DCE) warehouse receipt daily report for a specified date. The hierarchical label and return statement specify both the resource and the scope, and the DCE prefix distinguishes it from sibling warehouse receipt tools for other exchanges.

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 alternatives such as futures_warehouse_receipt_czce for other exchanges. The description merely states what it returns, but does not give context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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