获取利率数据

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the data source (LPR) and tenors, but does not disclose whether the output is a time series, the data frequency, or any limitations. The 'limit' parameter suggests pagination but its effect is unexplained in the description.

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 single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the key tenor details. Every word contributes to the understanding of the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose but lacks detail on the return format or historical nature of the data. The 'limit' parameter hints at multiple records, but the description does not clarify whether these are historical LPR values or something else.

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 100% for the single 'limit' parameter, which already includes a clear description in Chinese. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the tool fetches China's LPR (loan prime rate) data, specifically the 1-year and 5-year-plus tenors, for analyzing monetary policy and loan costs. This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling macro tools like macro_gdp or macro_cpi.

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 a clear context for when to use this tool (analyzing monetary policy and loan costs), but does not mention exclusions or alternatives. It implies the use case without explicitly naming when not to use it or comparing to other rate tools.

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