获取货币供应量数据

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It describes the data type (monthly, M0/M1/M2, current value, YoY growth), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential quirks like data source, update frequency, or limitations beyond what the schema documents, leaving some room for assumption.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the resource and includes the purpose. There is no redundant information or filler.

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 optional parameter) and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently covers the key return values (current value and YoY growth) and frequency. It could specify the response format in more detail, but it is nearly complete for this straightforward data retrieval tool.

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 covers the sole parameter (limit) fully, including a recommended range. The tool description does not add meaningful extra semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves Chinese money supply data (M0/M1/M2) on a monthly basis, including current values and year-over-year growth rates. This clearly names the resource and differentiates 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 clear context for when to use the tool: for analyzing monetary policy and liquidity. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the mention of '货币政策和流动性' gives sufficient guidance given the tool's specific scope.

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