index_si_cx

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame), which is some context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as data range, update frequency, or any potential network dependencies beyond the URL. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a title, URL, return field, and return type. All information is front-loaded and relevant. There is no redundant text, and it earns its place by clarifying the data source and output format. This is a model of brevity without sacrificing essential information.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it names the resource, provides a URL, and states the return type. However, it lacks details on the data's temporal scope (e.g., historical range, frequency) or any notes on how the spillover index is calculated. These are not critical for a no-parameter tool but would enhance completeness. Annotations and the URL mitigate the gap, so a 4 is justified.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description correctly adds no parameter details because there are none. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description also specifies the return type, which is useful for understanding the output.

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 identifies the resource as '财新数据-指数报告-溢出指数' (Caixin Data - Index Report - Spillover Index) and states the return type (pandas.DataFrame) with ':return: 溢出指数'. This clearly indicates the tool returns the spillover index data, distinguishing it from sibling tools with different index names (e.g., index_dei_cx, index_ai_cx). However, the verb is implied ('return') rather than an explicit action like 'fetch' or 'get', so it lacks a strong action resource statement.

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. It does not mention any selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no indication of when this specific spillover index tool is preferred over the many similar index_*_cx tools. This is a clear gap for an agent trying to choose among siblings.

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