futures_spot_price_previous

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the fact that basis is included, but says nothing about data availability, rate limits, or how far back history goes.

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 content is compact and front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes first, followed by a source URL and terse docstring tags. There is minor redundancy (the title repeats the first sentence) and the raw docstring syntax is a little noisy, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read-only query with no output schema, describing the return as spot price plus basis is adequate. However, the unresolved date-format ambiguity and the absence of any routing guidance against the many sibling spot/futures price tools leave gaps an agent would have to resolve by trial.

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% and the single date parameter has only a default value ('20240430'), so the description carries the burden. ':param date: 交易日；历史日期' usefully clarifies that it is a trading day and may be historical, but the required string format is never stated — the example URL uses '2017-09-12' while the default is '20240430', leaving genuine ambiguity.

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 a specific resource (commodity spot price plus the corresponding basis) scoped to a single trading day, and the example URL makes the data source explicit. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as futures_spot_price, futures_spot_price_daily, or spot_price_table_qh, so an agent must infer the difference.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the alternative spot-price tools in the sibling list. The phrase '历史日期' implies the date can be in the past, but nothing tells the agent when this tool is preferable to futures_spot_price or futures_spot_price_daily.

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