Fetch Shanghai International Energy Exchange futures trading parameters for a given trading date, including contract specifications and trading limits.
上海国际能源交易中心-业务指南-交易参数汇总（期货） https://www.ine.cn/bourseService/summary/?name=currinstrumentprop :param date: 查询日期；交易日 :type date: str :return: 交易参数汇总查询 :rtype: pandas.DataFrame
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | 20241129 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description does not contradict it. The description adds that the source is the INE business-guide page and that the result is a pandas.DataFrame, but says nothing about update cadence, availability of historical dates, or failure behavior when a non-trading day is passed.
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 body is short, but it is auto-generated docstring boilerplate led by a raw URL and reST field markers rather than a front-loaded purpose statement. The :type:/:rtype: lines duplicate information already implied by the schema and return convention, so not every line earns its place.
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 single-parameter, no-output-schema data fetch with adequate annotations, the definition is minimally usable: it identifies the exchange, the source, the parameter meaning, and the return type. It is still thin on date formatting and on what the 'trading parameters' result actually contains.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does clarify that date is a 查询日期 and must be a 交易日 (trading day) - non-obvious constraints the schema lacks. It still omits the expected string format (inferable only from the 20241129 default) and whether the parameter is optional in practice.
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 title-derived text names a specific exchange (上海国际能源交易中心 / INE) and a specific dataset (业务指南-交易参数汇总 for 期货), which pins it apart from the sibling futures_contract_info_cffex/czce/dce/gfex/shfe tools by exchange. However it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, and '交易参数汇总' stays abstract about what fields are returned.
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 statement of when to call this versus other contract-info tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. The only context offered is the source URL, which tells the agent where the data comes from but not when to prefer this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.