financial_stress_indexMonitor global financial stress via yield curve, TED spread, BAA credit spread, and Asia-Pacific FX moves. Outputs regional stress levels (CRITICAL/HIGH/MODERATE/LOW) and contagion signals.
全球金融压力实时监测：收益率曲线倒挂、TED利差、BAA信用利差、亚太汇率异动。直接输出各区域压力等级(CRITICAL/HIGH/MODERATE/LOW)和传导信号。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| detail | No | True=含历史序列, False=仅最新快照 |
| 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool monitors stress and directly outputs regional pressure levels plus transmission signals, which is useful. However, it does not mention data sources, update frequency, latency, or limitations, so transparency is incomplete.
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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core monitoring purpose, then efficiently lists the monitored indicators and the output format. Every clause contributes useful information.
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 input side is minimal (one optional boolean), and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values in depth. It sufficiently covers purpose, indicators, and output levels. The term '传导信号' is somewhat vague but not an obstacle to correct invocation.
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% with a clear description for the single boolean detail parameter. The tool description does not add parameter-specific detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already fully documents the parameter.
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 clearly identifies the resource ('全球金融压力'), the action ('实时监测' and '直接输出'), and the exact output format ('CRITICAL/HIGH/MODERATE/LOW'). This distinguishes it from generic financial-indicator tools by stating a distinctive stress-level output.
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 usage for real-time global financial stress monitoring and lists relevant indicators, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as financial_indicators or market_overview. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or named sibling distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.