option_margin_symbol

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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds only the return type (pandas.DataFrame) but no behavioral context such as data source, potential latency, or error conditions. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not add meaningful behavioral transparency beyond the structured metadata.

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 very short, which is appropriate for a no-parameter tool, but it contains redundancy: the :return line repeats exactly the same phrase as the main description. This wastes a line and could be streamlined. It would be better to remove the repetition or add additional useful information.

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 returning a simple list, the description gives the essential information: it returns commodity option codes and names as a DataFrame. However, it omits any details about the data source, update frequency, or column names, and does not clarify whether it covers all commodity exchanges or a specific one. Given the simplicity, it is minimally adequate but lacks finish.

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 baseline is 4. There are no parameters to describe, and the schema coverage is complete (100% coverage with an empty schema). The description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps.

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 the tool retrieves commodity option variety codes and names (获取商品期权品种代码和名称). It provides a specific verb and resource, making the primary purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from similar sibling tools like option_comm_symbol, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The description simply restates the output without context.

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