获取期货价格

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful context by specifying '国内' and '主力合约', which limits scope and clarifies the type of data returned. However, it does not describe output format, data ordering, or potential errors, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 a single sentence that immediately conveys the purpose and key data fields. It is appropriately concise with no redundant content.

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's moderate complexity and absence of an output schema, the description provides enough to understand the basic functionality and data types, but lacks details about return structure, limit behavior, or how to handle invalid symbols. It is adequate but not fully 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?

The input schema describes both parameters (symbol and limit) with 100% coverage, including an enumerated list of supported symbols. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool retrieves historical price data for domestic futures main contracts, including OHLCV and volume. The verb '获取' pairs with a specific resource, and the inclusion of '主力合约' distinguishes it from futures inventory/basis tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling 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?

Usage is implied: the description implies this tool is for historical futures price data, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over futures_inventory, futures_basis, or others. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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