macro_rmb_deposit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and source URL, which are useful but minimal. It does not mention any potential limitations, such as data frequency, date range, or network dependencies.

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 concise, consisting of a title, URL, and two docstring lines. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool. However, there is redundancy: the title '人民币存款余额' is repeated in the :return: line. Still, every piece of information is relevant and the structure is clear.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic information: source, data type, and return type. However, it does not explain what the returned DataFrame contains beyond '人民币存款余额'—such as time series frequency, columns, or historical depth. Given no output schema, more detail about the return value would improve completeness.

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 schema has full coverage by definition. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given there is nothing to document. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and there are no gaps to penalize.

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 tool as retrieving RMB deposit balance data from Flush Data Center, with the return type specified as pandas.DataFrame. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', and does not distinguish itself from similar macro tools such as macro_china_rmb or macro_rmb_loan.

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 simply states the source and return type, with no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it. There is no comparison to sibling tools like macro_china_rmb.

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