get_deposit_rate_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool fetches data and returns a markdown table or error message, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or what happens when date parameters are omitted. The description provides basic functional information but lacks operational context.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections: a purpose statement, parameter documentation, and return value description. Every sentence earns its place - the first sentence states the core functionality, and the Args/Returns sections provide essential usage information without redundancy. The formatting with clear section headers enhances readability.

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 the tool has an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description appropriately focuses on functionality rather than return value details. It covers the core purpose and parameter semantics well, though it could benefit from more behavioral context given the lack of annotations. For a data-fetching tool with 2 optional parameters, this description provides adequate context for basic usage.

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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clearly explains that start_date and end_date are optional parameters in 'YYYY-MM-DD' format for defining a date range, which the schema only indicates through titles and nullability. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't explain default behavior when parameters are omitted.

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 the tool fetches benchmark deposit rates (活期, 定期) within a date range, providing specific verb ('fetches'), resource ('benchmark deposit rates'), and scope ('within a date range'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_loan_rate_data or get_shibor_data by focusing specifically on deposit rates rather than loan rates or interbank rates.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions date range parameters, it doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is appropriate versus other financial data tools in the sibling list, such as get_loan_rate_data for loan rates or get_shibor_data for interbank rates. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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