futures_zh_minute_sina

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the upstream data source URL and the return type (pandas.DataFrame), but says nothing about history depth, rate limits, or data latency.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line and the Sphinx-style param/type/return lines are structured and scannable. The raw webpage URL is somewhat boilerplate but short enough not to obstruct.

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 read-only, no-output-schema data pull with only two defaulted parameters, the description covers the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and both parameters' semantics. Nothing critical for a correct invocation is missing, though the absence of an explicit time-range or history caveat is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it spells out the full period enum with Chinese labels ("1"=1分钟 ... "60"=60分钟) that the bare schema lacks, and explains how to obtain symbol via match_main_contract. Symbol string-format details beyond the lookup path are the only 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 opening line states a specific resource and frequency: minute-frequency data for Chinese futures varieties. The '分钟频率' qualifier distinguishes it from daily/spot siblings like futures_zh_daily_sina and futures_zh_spot, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It gives a concrete workflow hint for obtaining the symbol via match_main_contract(symbol="cffex") or the webpage, which is useful. However it never states when to choose this tool over the many other futures/stock minute tools in the sibling list, leaving usage largely implied.

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