rate_interbank

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the source, but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or the time range covered — so it adds only modest behavioral context.

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 core phrase 具体市场的具体品种的具体指标的拆借利率数据 is repeated verbatim in the opening and the :return line, wasting space. The parameter blocks are otherwise well structured and the reference URL is front-loaded enough to be useful.

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 3-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential value lists, but omits defaults behavior, the time coverage of the returned series, and how it differs from macro_china_shibor_all. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would otherwise have to probe for.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does so: it enumerates the valid choices for all three parameters (六 markets, symbols like Shibor人民币/Libor英镑, indicators like 隔夜/1周). The enum lists are partially elided with '***', which is the only shortfall.

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 names the data source (东方财富), the resource (拆借利率 / interbank offered rate) and the scoping dimensions (market/variety/indicator), so an agent can tell it returns interbank lending rates. It does not explicitly differentiate from the closely related sibling macro_china_shibor_all, so it falls short of a 5.

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 supplies the concrete choice lists for market/symbol/indicator and a reference URL, which steers value selection, but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives like macro_china_shibor_all or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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