futures_settle

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world read, so safety disclosure is covered. The description adds the default date resolution ('默认为当前交易日') and the return container (pandas.DataFrame of unified-format data). It says nothing about pagination, rate limits, permissions, or the shape of the returned settlement fields.

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 docstring is front-loaded with the resource and then the parameters, and every line carries information. It repeats type information via :type/:rtype directives that restore what the schema lacks, which is justified rather than wasteful, though the rst scaffolding adds mild verbosity.

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?

With only two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations gaps, the description is nearly sufficient: it documents both inputs completely and names the return type. Its one shortfall is that '统一格式' is left unelaborated, so the agent does not know what columns a settlement-parameter frame 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it spells out the date formats (YYYY-MM-DD, YYYYMMDD, datetime.date), the default, and enumerates every market code with its exchange name (CFFEX/CZCE/SHFE/DCE/INE/GFEX). This maps the enum values the schema omits entirely, fully compensating for the coverage gap.

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 identifies the resource ('期货交易所结算参数') and the parameter docs make clear it retrieves settlement parameters for a named exchange on a given date. The verb is only implicit (a noun phrase restating the title), and it never distinguishes itself from the exchange-specific siblings like futures_settle_cffex or futures_settle_gfex, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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: it does not say to pick this generic tool versus the per-exchange futures_settle_* variants, nor does it state prerequisites or scenarios. The only contextual hint is the default behavior of each parameter (date defaults to the current trading day), which is parameter detail rather than usage direction.

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