macro_canada_trade

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds the source URL and return type (pandas DataFrame), which is useful, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, column structure, or any quirks of the Eastmoney source. No contradictions with 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 very short, containing only the title, URL, and return annotations. It wastes no words, but the formatting is somewhat fragmented, with line breaks separating elements rather than flowing prose. Still, it is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

For a simple, read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: source (Eastmoney), the specific indicator (Canada trade account), and the return type (DataFrame). It lacks details about the exact columns or date range, but that is likely acceptable for this level of complexity.

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, and the input schema is effectively 100% covered (empty schema). The description correctly provides no parameter details, and the baseline of 4 applies since there is nothing to explain. No additional meaning 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 identifies the resource (Canada trade data from Eastmoney) and distinguishes it from sibling trade tools by country. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', relying instead on the ':return:' annotation to imply data retrieval. The URL and data type make the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative trade tools such as macro_uk_trade or macro_usa_trade_balance. The description only states the source and data type, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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