futures_zh_daily_sina

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the return type is a pandas DataFrame, which is useful but not disclosed elsewhere. It does not describe any quirks about the data (e.g., date range, columns, or source behavior), but with annotations covering side effects, the additional context is modest.

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 short and well-structured with a URL, parameter docstring, and return type. It front-loads the main purpose and does not waste words. The format is easy to scan, and every line adds some value, though the URL is cryptic.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states the data source, how to get the symbol, and the return type. However, it does not describe the DataFrame's columns or the temporal scope of the data, which could matter for an agent deciding whether this tool meets the user's need among many futures alternatives.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that symbol can be obtained from match_main_contract or the webpage, and provides an example URL. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not explain the symbol format in detail or list valid conventions. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

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 Chinese futures daily frequency data, which aligns with the tool name, but it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'retrieve') and is largely a noun phrase restating the title. It does provide a URL and mentions the return type, giving some clarity, but does not clearly differentiate from similar tools like futures_zh_realtime or futures_zh_minute_sina beyond the 'daily' frequency.

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 gives helpful guidance on how to obtain the symbol parameter via match_main_contract or the web page, which is a form of usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., minute or realtime futures tools), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions beyond symbol acquisition.

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