Fetch monthly new business registration statistics for Hong Kong. Filter by start and end year and month to analyze registration trends over time.
Get monthly statistics on the number of new business registrations in Hong Kong
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_year | No | End Year | |
| end_month | No | End Month | |
| start_year | No | Start Year | |
| start_month | No | Start Month |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The phrasing implies a safe read-only operation, but it does not disclose what happens when all four date parameters are omitted (defaults are null, presumably meaning full history), whether the range is inclusive, or any rate/volume limits on the returned monthly series.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information conveyed, though that economy comes at the cost of the omissions noted elsewhere.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with four date-range parameters and no annotations, the description leaves the default-range behavior and the meaning of the start/end pairing unspecified, which is a real gap for an agent constructing a call.
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 100%, so the schema already documents the four parameters, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not clarify whether start/end bounds are inclusive, what units the month integer uses, or what the default null range returns.
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 gives a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('monthly statistics on the number of new business registrations'), and a geographic scope (Hong Kong), so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_economy_snapshot or get_neg_equity_stats, which follow the same 'get_*_stats' pattern.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling statistics tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the one-sentence purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.