Retrieve Caixin China index data covering 19 indicators such as digital economy, new economy, commodities, AI strategy, and PMI to support financial analysis.
财新指数数据（19个指数）：数字经济/新经济/大宗商品/高质量因子/AI策略/PMI等
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | 中国新经济指数 | |
| limit | No |
| 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the count and categories of indices but does not disclose behavior such as whether data is returned as a series, whether an invalid name returns an error, pagination effects of limit, or any rate limits/access considerations.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the source and scope, then gives useful examples. It is concise and easy to scan, with no filler 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?
Although the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description lacks enough context for correct tool selection and parameter use. It does not mention the sibling caixin_list, clarify how limit affects results, or state whether name is an exact identifier or a fuzzy label. An agent could call it with defaults, but not confidently vary parameters.
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 must compensate. It indirectly suggests possible values for the name parameter by listing index categories, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly explain the limit parameter, how defaults interact, or that name must match one of the 19 specified indices.
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 identifies a specific resource (Caixin index data) and provides a concrete scope (19 indices) with examples such as digital economy, new economy, commodities, and PMI. It is clear that this tool retrieves Caixin index data, though it does not explicitly use a verb like 'get' or 'fetch'.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like caixin_list or other index/data tools. The description implies use for Caixin index data but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.