futures_settle_cffex

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds modest behavioral context: the return is a pandas.DataFrame and the data source is the CFFEX site. It does not describe pagination, data freshness, or rate limits.

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-style layout is compact and front-loads the purpose, then the URL and the single parameter's format. The embedded URL and rtype line are mildly extraneous but each element remains informative.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the purpose, the parameter's accepted formats, the default, and the return type, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Only the lack of when-to-use guidance keeps it from being fully complete.

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 it does so well: it specifies the date parameter accepts YYYY-MM-DD, YYYYMMDD, or a datetime.date object, and that the default is the current trading day. This fully compensates for the undocumented 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 names a specific resource (结算参数, i.e. settlement parameters) scoped to the China Financial Futures Exchange (CFFEX), and provides the source URL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as futures_settle_czce/gfex/ine/shfe, though the differentiation is carried mainly by the exchange token rather than explicit prose.

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 use this tool versus alternatives (e.g. the other futures_settle_* variants) and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the appropriate context entirely from the exchange name.

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