get_derivatives_bars_daily_futures

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds 'Premium only' as a behavioral constraint beyond annotations, but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits or error handling. The value added is minimal.

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 well-structured with a summary, usage keywords, return data, plan note, and parameter list. It is concise but could eliminate minor redundancy (e.g., repeating 'Premium only'). Overall efficient.

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 the tool has 3 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential return data (OHLC, volume, open interest) and parameter explanations. It lacks details on pagination or error conditions, but these are standard. The description is reasonably complete.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter: date format, category with examples, and contract_flag with meaning. This provides critical context that the schema alone lacks.

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 clearly states it provides daily futures OHLC bars, with volume and open interest, and distinguishes itself from options-related siblings by mentioning 'futures' and providing Japanese keywords. The verb 'get' and resource 'derivatives_bars_daily_futures' are well-defined.

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?

The description explicitly lists use cases (e.g., 先物, 日経先物) and notes 'Premium only' as an access constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it directly to siblings for alternatives.

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