get_gfex_daily

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: the official data source URL, the specific product covered (industrial silicon) with its listing date, accepted date formats, and a default of the current trading day. It stops short of describing return columns or rate limits, but the added context is meaningful.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then source, parameter, and return type. It is appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval tool. The included URL and repeated return line are slightly redundant but not harmful.

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?

Given a simple one-parameter getter with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not specify what columns or contracts the returned DataFrame contains, and it does not mention whether historical dates are supported, leaving gaps for an agent that needs to know the return shape.

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 parameter. It fully documents the single date parameter with formats (YYYY-MM-DD, YYYYMMDD) and a default value. Minor caveat: it mentions a datetime.date object even though the MCP schema only permits strings, which is a slight mismatch for an MCP tool.

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 verb and resource: daily volume-price data for the Guangzhou Futures Exchange, with an explicit scope note on industrial silicon and its listing date. It distinguishes itself from sibling daily futures tools (e.g., get_cffex_daily, get_dce_daily) by naming the exchange, though it does not explicitly call out those alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives the data source and parameter formats but never says when this tool is appropriate, what conditions select it over other exchange daily tools, or any exclusions.

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