option_margin

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 fully covered. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or data freshness, so with annotations carrying the load a 3 is appropriate.

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?

It is a compact docstring with the purpose front-loaded and only standard :type/:rtype lines following. Nothing is bloated, though the return/type lines are somewhat redundant for a single-param tool.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, value semantics, discovery of valid inputs, and return type. It is essentially complete for an agent to call it 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 does: it defines symbol as the commodity option variety name, supplies a concrete example ('原油期权'), and points to option_margin_symbol() for valid values. This is meaningfully more than the bare schema provides, though format/default details remain partial.

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 specific verb+resource: '获取商品期权保证金' (get commodity option margin), which tells the agent exactly what data is returned. It does not differentiate itself from sibling margin/option tools beyond referencing option_margin_symbol as a helper, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent learns that symbol values can be discovered via ak.option_margin_symbol(), which hints at the workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement relative to sibling tools such as option_margin_symbol or option_risk_indicator_sse.

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