cn_m

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states '获取' (get), implying a read operation, but does not disclose any additional traits such as data freshness, rate limits, or error conditions. For a simple data retrieval tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 well-structured with a name, purpose statement, parameter table, and fields list. It is concise with no superfluous information, and the most important details (purpose and parameters) are front-loaded.

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 (no output schema required, no nested objects), the description is complete. It provides the return fields, parameter options, and clearly explains the data source (monthly money supply). No critical information is missing.

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%, but the description compensates fully with a detailed parameter table listing all four parameters (m, start_m, end_m, fields) with clear descriptions and format requirements (YYYYMM). Additionally, the Fields list provides all selectable return fields, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 it retrieves monthly money supply data (货币供应量之月度数据), with a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('货币供应量'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cn_cpi or cn_gdp which cover different economic indicators.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. However, the context of sibling tools implies it is for money supply data, and the parameter table provides basic usage instructions. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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