option_hist_shfe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and enumerates valid symbol choices, but does not disclose behavioral nuances like date format expectations, data availability limits, or potential network dependencies. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise docstring: title, source URL, parameter definitions with types, and return type. No fluff, each line earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 2-parameter read-only data fetch with strong annotations, the description covers the essential semantics: what data is returned, where from, and what the parameters mean. It could explicitly state the date format (YYYYMMDD) and clarify that the data is historical/daily, but the schema defaults and title cover most needs. No major gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It provides meaning for both parameters: trade_date is '交易日' (trading day) and symbol lists all 13 valid choices. It lacks an explicit format for trade_date, but the default '20250418' in schema implies YYYYMMDD. This meaningfully compensates for the schema gap.

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 '上海期货交易所-期权-日频行情数据' which identifies the resource (SHFE options daily market data) and the operation (data retrieval). The exchange is explicit in both the name and description, distinguishing it from sibling option_hist_czce, option_hist_dce, etc.

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 implies use for SHFE options daily data by naming the exchange and providing a source URL. It distinguishes itself from other option_hist_* tools via the exchange, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, so lacks an explicit exclusion.

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