option_cffex_zz1000_spot_sina

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by stating it returns real-time ('实时') call/put market data and provides the data source URL. It does not describe error handling or data freshness, but given the safety profile is covered by annotations, this is above-average value.

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 compact docstring with a title, source URL, parameter detail, and return type. Every element earns its place; no redundant or missing critical information. It is cleanly structured and easy to parse.

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 description tells the user the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the general content (call/put quotes), but it does not enumerate DataFrame columns or clarify that the symbol is optional (schema default 'mo2208'). The absence of an output schema increases the need for such details, though the tool's simplicity partially mitigates this gap.

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 single parameter `symbol` has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description compensates thoroughly by explaining it is a contract code and directing users to the list function for valid values. This provides actionable semantic meaning beyond the bare schema, including a lookup method.

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 it provides '中金所-中证 1000 指数-指定合约-实时行情' (CFFEX CSI 1000 index specified-contract real-time quotes) and further specifies the return as call/put real-time quotes. This clearly identifies the tool's unique function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like daily snapshots or list functions.

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 one cross-reference: '用 option_cffex_zz1000_list_sina 函数查看' to find the symbol code. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as daily data or other index options (e.g., HS300). Usage context is implied by '实时行情' but not explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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