macro_shipping_bdi

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 fully covered. The description adds useful context: it names the data source (eastmoney.com) and specifies the return type as pandas.DataFrame, which goes beyond structured annotations. However, it doesn't elaborate on data frequency (daily? historical range?) or any quirks, but given the strong annotations, this is solid.

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 and gets to the point, but it includes an awkwardly placed URL followed by :return: and :rtype: docstring fragments that look like leftover code documentation rather than polished prose. It is not poorly sized, but the structure is somewhat messy and could be cleaner.

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?

The description is mostly complete for a simple parameterless retrieval tool, and the annotations and empty schema make this straightforward. However, it lacks any indication of the time coverage, update frequency, or historical depth of the data, which could matter to an agent choosing between this and similar shipping index tools like macro_shipping_bci. It is adequate but with room for improvement.

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 is trivially complete with 100% coverage. The description reinforces that the tool returns the BDI index as a DataFrame, which is enough semantic context for a parameterless retrieval function. No additional parameter explanation 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 identifies the tool as returning the Baltic Dry Index (BDI) and includes a data source URL, which clearly conveys its purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like macro_shipping_bci, macro_shipping_bpi, and macro_shipping_bcti, which are related shipping indices, so it sits just below a top score.

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 implies this tool is used for retrieving the BDI because it names the index and provides a source, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as macro_shipping_bci or macro_shipping_bpi, nor does it mention exclusions or complementary tools. The usage context is only implicitly that the user wants BDI data.

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