bond_yieldsRetrieve China and US treasury yield curve data, including 2-, 5-, 10-, and 30-year yields and term spreads, with full history returned in one response.
获取中国和美国国债收益率曲线数据，包含2年/5年/10年/30年期收益率及期限利差。一次性返回全量历史序列，前端按需截取。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 返回最近期数（日频），传0返回全量 | |
| china_only | No | True=仅中国，False=中美全量 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool returns the full historical series in one response and leaves truncation to the frontend. It also clarifies the data contents (tenors and spreads). Minor unknowns like units and update frequency remain, but the core behavior is clear.
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?
Two tight sentences: the first defines scope and content, the second describes return behavior. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 simple read-only query tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential selection and invocation context. It names the data, tenors, spread, and full-history behavior. It doesn't mention units or data source, but given the output schema exists and there are no required parameters, this is largely sufficient.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description's 'front-end truncates as needed' comment loosely relates to the limit parameter but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: it retrieves China and US treasury yield curve data, explicitly naming the tenors (2/5/10/30 year) and term spreads. This clearly distinguishes it from general macro or bond tools in the sibling list, even without naming an alternative.
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 the tool is for retrieving historical China/US treasury yield curve data, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over related siblings like macro_interest_rate or bond_collect. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.