spot_price_table_qh

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds a source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame), which offers some behavioral context, but it does not mention network behavior, rate limits, or data freshness beyond what annotations provide.

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 short but contains redundancy: the first line repeats the title annotation verbatim. The remaining lines (URL, return, rtype) are useful, but the duplicate title wastes some space.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains that the output is a DataFrame containing an exchange-and-product mapping table. It also provides the source URL for verification. This is sufficient for selecting and invoking this tool correctly.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers all invocation needs. The description need not add parameter explanations; the baseline score for 0 parameters is 4.

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 states the tool returns a mapping table of exchanges and product varieties from the 99qh.com website. It provides a clear resource and expected output, though it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'fetch', 'scrape') and does not differentiate from sibling tools like spot_price_qh.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as spot_price_qh or futures_spot_price_previous. It only describes the output and source, without any contextual or exclusionary information.

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