Retrieve negative equity residential mortgage loan statistics in Hong Kong for a chosen period to analyze housing market stress and mortgage risk.
Get statistics on residential mortgage loans in negative equity 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say the call is read-only, that all parameters are optional and what defaults to (all four default to null), the reporting granularity (monthly), the data source (HKMA), or how far back the series goes. 'Get' weakly implies a read, but no behavioral trait is actually stated.
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 repetition. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than concisely complete.
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-value structure need not be described, and the tool is a simple read-only stats fetch with four optional filters. Still missing are the data source, update frequency, default time range when all parameters are null, and any note that this covers Hong Kong only via official statistics.
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 nominally documents all four parameters, and per the rubric that sets a baseline of 3. However, the schema text is only the trivial labels 'Start Year', 'Start Month', 'End Year', 'End Month', and the description adds no semantics (formats, valid ranges, whether the window is inclusive, what happens when omitted) beyond them.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get statistics') and a precise resource ('residential mortgage loans in negative equity in Hong Kong'), which is far more specific than the generic name alone. It does not name or contrast with any sibling, but the sibling list (credit card stats, ATM locations, bank branch locations, etc.) is topically disjoint, so disambiguation is easy.
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 use this versus the other *_stats tools (get_business_stats, get_credit_card_stats, get_hibor_daily_stats, get_stamp_duty_statistics), nor on the meaning of the optional date window. The agent must infer that the four date parameters bound the reporting period.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.