rwa_credit

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits beyond pricing. It does not mention what the tool does, side effects, auth needs, or rate limits, leaving the agent without critical context for safe invocation.

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 concise (two lines) and includes pricing information, but it lacks core functional content. While brevity is positive, the missing purpose and usage details make it insufficiently informative.

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 no output schema and one required parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what kind of credit data is returned, how queries work, or the response format, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single 'query' parameter ('查询条件'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, achieving the baseline score.

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 indicates 'RWA信贷数据' (RWA credit data) but uses no verb to specify the operation (fetch, search, etc.). It vaguely suggests credit-related data retrieval but does not clearly distinguish from sibling RWA tools like rwa_bond or rwa_commodity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only provides pricing and an API URL, omitting any context about the intended use case or prerequisites.

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