get_money_supply_data_year

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states it fetches data (implying read-only) and returns a markdown table or error, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it requires authentication, rate limits, what happens if dates are invalid or out of range, if data is cached, or error handling specifics. The mention of 'error message' is vague.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses minimal sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose, the args clarify parameters, and returns specify output format. It could be slightly more concise by integrating args into the purpose sentence.

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 no annotations, 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns'), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and output format, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error conditions, data freshness) and doesn't fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving gaps in usage scenarios.

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 0%, but the description compensates by specifying both parameters as optional and providing format ('YYYY'), which the schema lacks. However, it doesn't explain default values (implied by 'Optional' but not stated), valid year ranges, or what happens if only one date is provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it adds some value beyond the bare schema.

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 yearly money supply data (M0, M1, M2 year-end balance) within a date range, specifying the resource (money supply data) and scope (yearly, date range). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_money_supply_data_month' by specifying yearly vs. monthly data, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other financial data tools like 'get_balance_data' or 'get_cash_flow_data'.

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 like 'get_money_supply_data_month' for monthly data or other financial data tools. It mentions a date range but doesn't specify default behavior if dates aren't provided or when this tool is preferred over similar data-fetching siblings.

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