Fetches Shanghai Futures Exchange trading parameter summary for a given trading date, returning summarized parameters as a pandas DataFrame for analysis.
上海期货交易所-交易所服务-业务数据-交易参数汇总查询 https://tsite.shfe.com.cn/bourseService/businessdata/summaryinquiry/ :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 | 20240513 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the URL — no rate limits, no note about exchange trading-day semantics, no pagination or data freshness. A URL alone is thin behavioral context for a network fetch against a live exchange site.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, which is fine, but the first line duplicates the title and the remaining lines are boilerplate docstring fields (:param/:type/:return/:rtype) rather than agent-facing content. Little waste, but also little value.
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-param tool with no output schema the description should at minimum explain the return shape or the domain scope of 'trading parameters'. Instead it echoes ':return: 交易参数汇总查询' — a circular restatement. An agent cannot tell what columns or instruments it will receive.
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% and the single param 'date' has a schema default of '20240513' but no description. The description states '查询日期；交易日' (query date; trading day), which usefully clarifies that the date must be a trading day rather than a calendar day, but it omits the expected date format and what happens when a non-trading day is passed. Marginal compensation for a 0% coverage schema.
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 largely restates the tool title ('上海期货交易所-交易所服务-业务数据-交易参数汇总查询') which the annotations already supply as the title. '交易参数汇总查询' (trading parameter summary query) is a vague resource description and gives no hint of what contract parameters are returned. It never clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like futures_contract_detail, futures_contract_info_dce/czce/gfex, or futures_rule.
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?
No when-to-use guidance whatsoever. With ~500 sibling tools including several near-identical SHFE/other-exchange contract-info tools, the agent has no signal on when this one is the right pick versus futures_contract_detail or futures_contract_info_czce.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.