option_contract_info_ctp

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the return type (DataFrame) and a source URL, which is useful, but it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as data scope, update frequency, or error behavior. It adds some value beyond annotations but not rich context.

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 concise with a clear source URL and return type. However, it begins with the same phrase as the annotation title, creating minor redundancy. Overall, it is appropriately sized but not perfectly efficient.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It states that option contract information is returned as a DataFrame but does not describe the columns, the range of contracts (e.g., all exchanges, all maturities), or any other details. This leaves the agent uncertain about the data's structure and coverage.

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 accepts zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter details to explain. The description does not add parameter semantics, but none are needed. The return type documentation is a slight bonus.

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 identifies the tool as an openctp interface for option contract information and states that it returns a pandas DataFrame. It provides a specific resource ('期权合约' option contracts) but lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'get', and does not differentiate it from sibling option 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or preferred use cases. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and minimal description.

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