option_cffex_sz50_list_sina

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the return type is a dict and the first contract is the main contract, which helps the agent understand the output ordering.

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 three concise lines, front-loaded with the main purpose, includes scope (which indices are covered) and return type, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the data source, scope, ordering behavior, and return type. It does not describe the dict structure, which would be helpful for interpreting results, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return value and behavior.

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 explicitly states the tool lists all SSE 50 index option contracts from Sina Finance-CFFEX, and notes that the first returned contract is the main contract. This specific verb-resource pairing clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools for daily or spot data.

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 mentions that Sina Finance-CFFEX currently covers three indices (SSE 50, CSI 300, CSI 1000), implying which sibling list tools to use for other indices. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the daily or spot variants, so the guidance remains implicit.

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