get_futures_daily

Does 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 the accepted date formats, the empty-string-means-today default, and the market code mapping, but nothing about rate limits, data latency, or the shape/content of the returned DataFrame beyond its type.

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 format is compact, but the phrase "交易所日交易数据" is repeated as both the opening line and the :return:, and the most decision-relevant information (market scope, sibling distinction) is not front-loaded. Every field present earns its place; structure is merely adequate.

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 three-parameter read-only fetch with no output schema, the parameter-level detail is sufficient and the annotations cover safety. What is missing is anything an agent needs to choose this over the per-exchange siblings and any indication of what columns the returned DataFrame contains, leaving the routing decision incomplete.

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 carry the load, and it does: it documents both date parameters (three accepted formats plus the empty=current-day default) and enumerates the market codes (CFFEX/CZCE/SHFE/DCE/INE/GFEX) with Chinese exchange names and a default, values absent from the raw schema. The only gap is that the enum is prose text rather than listed in the 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 states the resource ("交易所日交易数据" / exchange daily trading data) but uses no real verb and gives no scope. With many siblings that fetch per-exchange daily data (get_cffex_daily, get_shfe_daily, get_czce_daily, get_dce_daily, get_ine_daily, get_gfex_daily, futures_hist_daily_cffex), the description never explains that this tool is the generic, market-parameterized version, so the agent cannot distinguish it from those siblings.

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 exclusion conditions, and no mention of the sibling exchange-specific tools. The only usable hint is the market enum (which implicitly selects an exchange), but the choice between this tool and the per-exchange siblings is left entirely to inference.

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