get_macro_indicator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the two views and their parameters but does not discuss data source, freshness, pagination, limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The behavioral context 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 extremely concise, consisting of two brief sentences. It front-loads the key concept ('Macro indicators - 宏观指标') and then efficiently describes the two views. No redundant or extraneous words.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, data range constraints, and the meaning of 'available indicators'. The description only covers the views and parameter usage briefly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies that 'search' is for the list view, and 'begin'/'end' are for history, and that 'indicator_id' is used in history. However, it does not explain the format of dates, the nature of indicator_id, or whether search is a substring match. The description adds moderate value but is incomplete.

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 macro indicators with two distinct views: 'list' for available indicators (with optional search) and 'history' for time series data for a specific indicator (with optional begin/end). The verb is implied, but the resource and actions are unambiguous, distinguishing it from 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?

The description implies when to use each view (list vs history) based on the desired output, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives among the many sibling tools. No exclusion criteria or comparative guidance is given.

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