index_ti_cx

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the source URL (https://yun.ccxe.com.cn/indices/nei) and the return type (pandas.DataFrame), providing useful context about the data origin and output format. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the behavioral traits are sufficiently disclosed for this simple read-only operation.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first line states the index name, followed by a source URL and return type. Every line carries meaningful content with no fluff. While it is very short, it is appropriately sized for a no-parameter read-only tool.

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 absence of an output schema, the description could be more complete about what the returned DataFrame contains. It only states '科技投入指数' without describing columns, time range, or granularity. The large number of sibling index_*_cx tools also suggests that a bit more differentiation would help, though the explicit index name and URL provide some context.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description adds no param-related information, but none is needed.

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 names the specific resource: '财新数据-指数报告-科技投入指数' (Caixin Data - Index Report - Technology Investment Index) and indicates the return type as a pandas DataFrame. It is specific about the data source and index, but the verb 'return' is implicit rather than an explicit 'get' or 'fetch'. It does not distinguish itself from sibling index_*_cx tools beyond the index name.

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?

No explicit usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool vs alternatives like index_ai_cx or index_si_cx. The intended use is implied by the index name ('科技投入指数'), making it clear that this tool is for retrieving the technology investment index, but no exclusions or context are given.

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