futures_foreign_hist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds limited behavioral context: data frequency is daily, data is historical, and the return type is pandas.DataFrame. It does not describe rate limits, data source behavior, or output columns.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, which is good. However, the raw URL adds noise without explanation, and the return/rtype lines repeat the frequency information already stated in the title, making the docstring less tight than it could be.

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 data retrieval tool with rich annotations but no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter acquisition, and return type. It does not describe the returned DataFrame columns or date-range behavior, which are important for an agent to use the output 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden for the single symbol parameter. It does explain that symbol is a foreign futures code and directs the agent to ak.futures_foreign_commodity_subscribe_exchange_symbol() for valid codes, which is meaningful beyond the schema. It does not clarify formatting details such as case or exchange prefixes.

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 resource and data type clearly: foreign futures (外盘期货) historical quotes at daily frequency. This distinguishes the tool from real-time variants in name and description, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as futures_foreign_commodity_realtime or other historical tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion conditions, and no named alternatives. The only actionable guidance is how to obtain valid symbol codes, which is parameter acquisition rather than usage context.

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