get_ine_daily

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: returns DataFrame or None, defaults to current trading day, and lists source URLs. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful context about return variability and default behavior.

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?

Description is a structured docstring with title, product context, source URLs, params, and return info. It is reasonably concise, though the URLs and product listing dates might be extraneous for invocation. Front-loaded with the title, making the tool purpose immediately visible.

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 single-optional-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, parameter formats, default, and return type. It doesn't specify DataFrame columns, but '量价数据' implies typical OHLCV data. Without an output schema, this is adequate but could be richer by noting what columns or instruments are returned.

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?

Only one parameter (date). The description compensates for 0% schema coverage by explaining accepted formats (YYYY-MM-DD/YYYYMMDD/datetime.date), default value semantics (current trading day), and type flexibility (str or datetime.date). This goes far beyond the schema's simple `string` type and gives the agent everything needed to populate the parameter correctly.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as retrieving Shanghai International Energy Exchange daily frequency price-volume data and lists the specific products (crude oil, TSR 20 rubber) with listing dates. However, it lacks an explicit verb in the description itself (action only in the tool name), and doesn't explicitly contrast with similar exchange daily tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the exchange and data type imply usage for INE daily data, there is no mention of when not to use it or how it differs from get_shfe_daily, futures_settle_ine, etc. In a large sibling set like this, the lack of differentiation is a gap.

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