货币与外贸数据

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does signal a read-only fetch rather than a mutation, but it does not disclose behavioral constraints such as data source/freshness, ordering, or how 'limit' applies across the multiple indicator series. These are clear gaps, though the operation is low-risk.

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 with no filler. It leads with the key indicators and states the aggregate scope immediately, which is appropriately front-loaded for quick agent scanning.

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?

Given that there is one optional, fully documented parameter and an output schema exists, the description is largely sufficient for invoking the tool correctly. The main remaining gaps are the exact boundaries of the '等' list and lack of explicit country/frequency context, but the output schema compensates for the return structure.

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 schema already documents the only parameter, limit, with a default value and a description ('返回期数'), and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning about how limit behaves across the combined indicators.

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 states a retrieval operation ('获取') over a specific resource ('综合货币与外贸数据') and enumerates concrete indicators (M2, 社融, LPR, 失业率, 外汇储备, 进出口), so the core purpose is unambiguous. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with specialized siblings such as macro_money_supply or macro_interest_rate, so sibling differentiation relies on the broad '综合' framing rather than a direct statement.

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 listed indicators imply when the tool is relevant: queries about money supply, social financing, LPR, unemployment, reserves, or trade. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of specialized siblings, and no statement about preferring macro_money_supply or macro_interest_rate for narrower requests.

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