rate_interbank

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 covered. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like data availability, historical scope, or any rate limits, which is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose statement, a reference URL, and clear parameter documentation in list form. Every element serves a purpose without redundant text.

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 specifies the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and indicates that it returns the selected rate data, but it does not describe the DataFrame structure or columns. For a relatively simple data-fetching tool with no output schema, this is reasonably complete, though a brief example or column note would improve it.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by listing explicit choices for market, symbol, and indicator, including examples like 'Shibor人民币' and '隔夜'. It also clarifies the return type. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema properties and defaults.

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 states that this tool fetches interbank lending rate data for a specific market, instrument, and indicator from East Money. It uses a specific verb (拆借利率数据) and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that also provide rate data, such as macro_china_shibor_all or repo_rate_query.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. It only describes the data it returns and provides parameter choices, leaving usage context entirely implied.

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