Retrieve Hong Kong creative goods trade statistics including domestic exports, re-exports, and imports. Filter data by start and end year to analyze trends in cultural product trade.
Domestic Exports, Re-exports and Imports of Creative Goods in Hong Kong
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_year | No | End year of range | |
| start_year | No | Start year of range |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about what the tool returns, default handling of null year parameters, possible aggregation, or any restrictions. The only implied behavior is 'get' from the tool name, which is insufficient.
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 short and contains no fluff, but it is structured as a title rather than a functional sentence. It is under-specified for an action-oriented tool description; conciseness is fine but at the cost of clarity and completeness.
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 the tool has optional year parameters, no annotations, and no explanation of default behavior, the description leaves too much to inference. Even though an output schema exists and parameters are documented in the schema, the sparse topic-only description does not give an agent enough context to select and invoke the tool confidently.
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%, with both parameters documented as start and end year of range. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation when the schema already covers the parameters.
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 data resource: Domestic Exports, Re-exports and Imports of Creative Goods in Hong Kong. It adds specificity beyond the tool name and makes the subject matter unambiguous, even though it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase.
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 guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (though none exist). The description simply names the data category without explaining what situations call for it or how it relates to other possible retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.