get_macro_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for transparency. It only states that data is retrieved and multiple indicators are supported, but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or read-only nature.

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 with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness, e.g., mentioning typical use cases.

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 has a moderate number of parameters and an output schema (provided by context), the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, error cases, or any behavior beyond the schema. More context is needed for full understanding.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, both parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond repeating that multiple indicators are supported, so it meets the baseline for not degrading but not enhancing understanding.

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 action (获取/get) and resource (宏观经济指标数据/macroeconomic indicator data), and it supports multiple indicators. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific financial aspects like funds, historical data, or stock details.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. Without context signals like read-only hints or sibling comparisons, the agent has no direction for selection.

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