option_cffex_zz1000_daily_sina

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context: the return type is a pandas.DataFrame containing daily-frequency data, and the symbol includes call/put identifiers. However, it does not disclose any quirks like missing values, date range behavior, or rate limits. Given the annotations cover the main behavioral traits, the extra context is moderate but not rich, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 well-structured docstring with a clear summary line followed by parameter and return fields. It is concise—only the essential details are included, and each line adds value. The format is familiar for akshare-style tools, making it easy to scan. Not perfectly minimal, but appropriate.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, idempotent, no output schema), the description is almost complete: it names the source, exchange, underlying index, frequency, parameter semantics, and return type. It lacks an explicit usage note about when to use this vs. alternatives, which is why it doesn't reach a 5, but for this straightforward data-fetch operation, the coverage is strong.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It explains that 'symbol' is a specific contract code including call/put identifiers and directs users to the spot function to obtain valid codes. This goes well beyond the bare schema (type string, default 'mo2208P6200') and provides actionable guidance for selecting the parameter value.

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 states this tool fetches daily-frequency market data for specified CSI 1000 index option contracts from CFFEX via Sina Finance ('新浪财经-中金所-中证 1000 指数-指定合约-日频行情'). It identifies the resource (CSI 1000 options) and the action (fetching daily quotes), and is distinguishable from sibling tools like option_cffex_zz1000_list_sina and option_cffex_zz1000_spot_sina by its 'daily' and 'specified contract' scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides a prerequisite hint—that the contract symbol can be obtained from option_cffex_zz1000_spot_sina via the 'call-标识'—but it does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., use for historical daily data vs. real-time spot). There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with sibling daily functions for other indices or the list/spot variants, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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