Retrieve the monthly US industrial production report from 1970 to present as a pandas DataFrame, returning current values in percent for economic analysis.
美国工业产出月率报告，数据区间从 19700101-至今 https://datacenter.jin10.com/reportType/dc_usa_industrial_production :return: 美国工业产出月率报告-今值(%) :rtype: pandas.DataFrame
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the historical coverage range and the return field/type, which is useful, but it does not disclose update cadence, units beyond percent, or whether the full history or only a current value is returned.
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 short and front-loads the resource and date range. The source URL and Sphinx-style :return:/:rtype: lines are useful but add slight visual noise for an agent selecting a tool.
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 zero-parameter read-only macro data tool with no output schema, the description gives the key context: country, indicator, frequency (monthly rate), historical range, and return type. It leaves minor ambiguity about whether the return is a full historical DataFrame or only the current value.
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 input parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately does not need to explain arguments.
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 states a specific resource: the US industrial production month-over-month report, with a clear date range from 1970-01-01 to present. It distinguishes itself from most non-US macro siblings by naming the country and indicator, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from macro_euro_industrial_production_mom or macro_china_industrial_production_yoy.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. It only states what the report contains, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used for US industrial production data rather than any related macro series.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.