futures_zh_minute_sina

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the source URL and how to obtain the symbol, and it states the return type (pandas.DataFrame). It does not disclose potential rate limits, data range, or column structure, but given the annotations, this is acceptable and adds some value beyond them.

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 a concise docstring with title, URL, parameter docs, and return type. It is structurally clear and front-loaded with the main purpose. The long URL is somewhat extraneous but not harmful, and every sentence earns its place by providing invocation-relevant information.

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 a relatively simple data-fetching function, and the description covers inputs and return type. However, with no output schema and no details about returned DataFrame columns, date ranges, or how symbols map to actual contracts, the description is not fully complete. It also lacks comparison with sibling tools for when to use it, leaving some ambiguity in a context-rich sibling list.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: symbol can be obtained via match_main_contract and period is a choice with Chinese labels (1/5/15/30/60 minutes). This provides meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare defaults, though it could benefit from examples of valid symbol formats.

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 '中国各品种期货分钟频率数据' (Chinese futures minute-frequency data), which clearly identifies the resource and frequency. The URL and 'return: 指定 symbol 和 period 的数据' further clarify it returns minute-level futures data for a given symbol and period. It distinguishes from daily or real-time siblings by specifying '分钟频率', though lacks a strong imperative verb like 'get'.

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 context for acquiring the symbol parameter via match_main_contract(symbol="cffex") or a webpage, which is useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., daily or real-time futures data tools) or provide exclusions. The usage is implied: use when you need minute-frequency Chinese futures data.

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