资本流动监测

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the burden of explaining behavior. It adds useful domain context by naming the monitored signals and interpreting capital flight as a crash precursor. Still, it does not disclose data source, update cadence, whether historical series or latest snapshot is returned, or limitations.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the monitoring subject and signals, followed by a high-value interpretive warning. No filler or redundant restatement of tool name.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers core inputs and purpose. The main gap is the lack of differentiation from similarly named capital-flow siblings, though this is partially captured in other dimensions.

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 single parameter focus already has a complete schema description ('apac/china/global'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter values, though its APAC focus aligns with the default value.

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?

Description states a specific verb '监测' and resource '亚太资本流动方向', enumerating concrete component signals (exchange rates, FX reserves, FDI net inflows). However, it does not differentiate itself from close sibling tools such as capital_tracking or capital_flows_snapshot, so it stops short of a 5.

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 on when to choose this tool over capital_tracking, capital_flows_snapshot, or northbound_funds is provided. The warning about capital flight implies an early-warning use case, but this is not made explicit enough to route an agent correctly.

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