Fetches the Shanghai Futures Exchange weekly designated delivery warehouse inventory report by trading date, returning the reported stock data as a pandas Series.
金十财经-上海期货交易所指定交割仓库库存周报 https://datacenter.jin10.com/reportType/dc_shfe_weekly_stock :param date: 交易日；库存周报只在每周的最后一个交易日公布数据 :type date: str :return: 库存周报 :rtype: pandas.Series
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | 20240419 |
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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the return type is a pandas.Series and that data is published weekly on the last trading day, which is useful but limited; it does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior.
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 description is short and front-loads the report title, but includes an extraneous URL and RST-style tags (:param, :type, :return, :rtype) that are noisy for an agent. The core information is present but the structure could be cleaner.
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 single-parameter data-fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers the source, the content of the report, the parameter's meaning and publication schedule, and the return type. Missing date format details and any statement about output shape beyond 'pandas.Series' are minor gaps.
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 compensate for the single undocumented parameter. It explains that 'date' refers to a trading day and that the weekly report is only published on the last trading day of each week, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare string type and default. However, it does not explicitly state the expected date format (although the default '20240419' implies YYYYMMDD).
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 a specific resource: the weekly inventory report of designated delivery warehouses from the Shanghai Futures Exchange, sourced from Jin10 Finance. This distinguishes it from broader warehouse-receipt or inventory siblings, although it is phrased as a title/noun phrase without an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'return'.
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?
The only usage note is embedded in the parameter description: the report is published only on the last trading day of each week. There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling alternatives such as futures_shfe_warehouse_receipt or futures_inventory_em, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.