repo_rate_hist

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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the behavioral constraint that the date range must be within one month, which is not captured by annotations or schema, and discloses the return type (pandas.DataFrame). This adds value beyond the structured metadata.

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 a compact, well-structured docstring with clear tagged sections for parameters and return. Every line serves a purpose: title, source URL, param semantics, and return type. No unnecessary words.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core aspects: purpose, source, parameter constraints, and return type. It does not describe the DataFrame columns or behavior when the date range exceeds one month, but these are secondary for a low-complexity historical data fetch.

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 provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's param docs are essential. They explain that start_date and end_date are start/end times and that they must be within one month. However, the expected date format (e.g., YYYYMMDD) is not explicitly stated, only implied by the 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 identifies the tool as providing historical repo fixing rate data from the China Foreign Exchange Trade System, with the return line confirming it returns historical data. However, it lacks an explicit action verb and does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool repo_rate_query, though the '历史数据' phrasing implies historical vs current.

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?

It provides parameter-level guidance, especially the critical constraint that start and end dates must be within one month, but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as repo_rate_query. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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