macro_china_money_supply

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame), providing some value beyond annotations, but lacks details on data coverage, frequency, or quirks. It does not 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 brief but not well-structured: it is a title, URL, and docstring fragments rather than a clear sentence. It is not verbose, but it lacks front-loaded purposeful phrasing.

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 no-parameter fetch tool, the description provides the source and return type but omits what specific money supply data is returned (e.g., M0, M1, M2), historical coverage, or column structure. No output schema exists, so the description should carry more weight but does not.

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 no parameters, so the description has no parameter burden. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and no additional semantic detail 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 is '东方财富-货币供应量' which translates to 'Eastmoney - Money Supply', essentially restating the tool name in Chinese. It includes a URL and return type but no verb or scope, making it near-tautological and not distinguishing it from sibling money supply tools.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like macro_china_m2_yearly or macro_china_supply_of_money. It only gives a data source URL without any contextual direction.

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