financial_evidence_routeResolve financial research topics to fixed public raw-JSON sources without fetching, giving direct evidence references across money markets, capital markets, bank risk, liquidity, and China economy.
Resolve one or more financial research topics to fixed public raw-JSON sources without fetching them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topics | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful operational context: sources are fixed, public, raw JSON, and the tool does not fetch them. This goes beyond the annotations, though the exact return shape is not disclosed.
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?
A single concise sentence that front-loads the verb, resource, and the most important behavioral distinction ('without fetching them'). There is no redundancy or filler.
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?
The single parameter is fully constrained by the schema, and annotations cover side-effect safety. The description states the core contract: topics in, fixed public raw-JSON sources out, no fetching. Without an output schema, a slightly more explicit statement of the returned mapping would be ideal, but the definition is still sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool 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 provides needed context that the 'topics' parameter refers to financial research topics and that each resolves to a fixed source. The schema's enum carries the allowed values, so the agent has enough information, but the description does not explain what each enum value represents.
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 action ('Resolve'), a precise object ('one or more financial research topics'), and the output ('fixed public raw-JSON sources'), plus the key constraint 'without fetching them.' This clearly separates it from financial_evidence_fetch and financial_evidence_topics without needing to inspect either.
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 phrase 'without fetching them' signals that this tool is for routing only and implicitly tells the agent not to use it when retrieval is needed. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or list when-not scenarios, but the context is clear and adequate for a simple one-parameter tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.