Synthesize four economic cycles into composite Z-scores and phase arrays to visualize nested cycle patterns and Gantt timelines.
四周期嵌套数据：基钦/朱格拉/库兹涅茨/康波合成Z值+相位序列（JSON数组），用于周期嵌套图与甘特图
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output content and format (composite Z values + phase sequence, JSON array), implying a read-only data retrieval. It does not mention data source, freshness, caching, rate limits, or other behavioral caveats, so transparency is adequate but not rich.
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 well-structured sentence front-loads the resource name and then packs the cycle composition, output content, output format, and use cases without filler. Every clause earns its place.
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 no-parameter tool, this description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The output schema can cover detailed field structure, while the description establishes what the data represents and what it is used for. The main missing context is explicit routing among sibling cycle tools, which is more a usage than a completeness gap.
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 tool has zero parameters, so no parameter explanation is required and the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds value by explaining what the returned payload represents rather than repeating parameter details.
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 clearly identifies the resource as four-cycle nested data combining Kitchin/Juglar/Kuznets/Kondratiev, with composite Z values and phase series, distinguishing it from sibling single-cycle tools. It also names intended downstream use (nesting chart and Gantt chart). However, it lacks an explicit fetching/returning verb, so it stops just 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?
The phrase 'used for cycle nesting chart and Gantt chart' gives a clear but implicit use context. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like data_kitchin, cycle_phase, or chart_kondratiev_cycle, nor does it give exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.