fx_c_swap_cm

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the source URL (chinamoney.org.cn) and the return type (pandas.DataFrame), which are not present in annotations. However, it does not describe the data structure, freshness, or any potential side effects like network calls, but given the annotations cover the safety profile, this partial addition warrants a 3.

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, but the first line is a redundant repetition of the product name that is already present in the annotations title. The URL and docstring-style :return: and :rtype: lines add useful information, giving it a recognizable structure. However, the redundant line wastes space, so it is not maximally concise.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the returned DataFrame contains (e.g., tenors, rates, dates), but it only repeats the curve name. It also does not provide any context about the C-Swap fixing curve's meaning or how it differs from other forex tools. This is a simple no-parameter fetcher, but the description lacks enough detail to be fully self-sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description properly does not need to explain any parameter semantics. The description adds no param details because there are none to add.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool's full product name (中国外汇交易中心...外汇掉期 C-Swap 定盘曲线) with no explicit verb or action. It identifies the resource but does not state what the tool does beyond returning that curve, and it does not distinguish from sibling tools like fx_swap_quote. The :return: line implies retrieval, but the main body is a noun phrase, making it a tautology of the title.

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 versus alternatives. The description provides only the name, a URL, and return type, with no context for which scenarios warrant calling this tool, or why it should be chosen over related fx tools such as fx_swap_quote or forex_hist_em. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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