futures_comm_js

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds source-domain context and return type, but does not describe pagination, rate limits, or data freshness beyond what the 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, front-loaded with the tool's subject matter, and then documents the parameter and return type. The source URL is extra but harmless, and no sentence is wasted.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description covers the source, parameter format, and return type. However, because there is no output schema, it could say more about the shape of the returned DataFrame, such as what commission fields are included.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It does so for the single date parameter by specifying YYYYMMDD format and giving an example, which adds useful semantics beyond the schema's type/default declaration.

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 resource as Jin10 futures commission/fee data and even cites the source URL, so an agent knows what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from sibling tools such as futures_comm_info or futures_fees_info, leaving ambiguity about which commission-fee source to choose.

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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions for selecting this tool over alternatives, and no prerequisites. It only documents the date parameter and return type, so usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and source.

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