futures_zh_spot

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds real behavioral context: setting adjust='1' returns contract, exchange and minimum tick data but makes the response slower. That latency tradeoff is genuinely useful for an agent and goes beyond the structured annotations.

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?

RST docstring format is readable and the purpose sentence is front-loaded, but the description is padded with a raw documentation URL and repeats '期货的实时行情数据' as both the summary and the :return, adding no information.

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 three parameters, no output schema and no structured descriptions, the description should carry more. It explains the adjust tradeoff but leaves the symbol format and the full set of market values undocumented, which an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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, and it partially does: adjust's '1'/'0' values and effect are explained and market's CF value is glossed. However, symbol is described only as 'a string combination of contract names' with no format example, and market's other valid values are never enumerated, leaving real gaps.

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?

States a clear verb-resource pairing: real-time quotation data for futures. The scope (Chinese futures, spot/realtime) is understandable, but it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like futures_zh_realtime or futures_zh_daily_sina, so an agent cannot tell them apart from this text alone.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer an alternative futures tool. The only hint is a performance side-effect of adjust='1', which is not usage guidance.

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