bond_china_close_return

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, lowering the bar. The description adds the source URL, return type (pandas.DataFrame), and the one-month date constraint. It doesn't reveal much about data structure, availability, or potential quirks, but it doesn't contradict the annotations.

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 not concise: it repeats the title, includes a URL, and has a poorly interleaved docstring with a type line out of place. While not excessively long, the structure is messy and not front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return structure, but it only says the return is historical data and a pandas.DataFrame without specifying columns. The symbol parameter is vague ('the indicator to fetch') with no list of valid values, and the date format is implied only by the default value.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a docstring explaining each parameter: symbol (indicator to fetch), period (term interval with allowed values {'0.1','0.5','1'}), and start/end dates with a one-month range limit. The malformed docstring and lack of explicit date format prevent a perfect score.

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 provides historical closing yield curve data (收盘收益率曲线历史数据) and includes a source URL. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish from closely related sibling tools like bond_china_close_return_map.

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 implies usage for fetching historical closing yield curve data from Chinamoney, and it mentions a date-range constraint (no more than 1 month). However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as bond_china_close_return_map or bond_china_yield.

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