getFinancialReportPagesRead full page content from a financial report by page range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market | No | Market: 'CN-A' | 'HK'. Optional. Omit to search all markets. | |
| pageCount | No | Number of pages to return, default 5, max 5 | |
| startPage | Yes | Start page (1-based) | |
| stockCode | Yes | Stock code from searchCompanyInfo. CN-A: 6 digits; HK: 5 digits. | |
| reportType | Yes | Report type, e.g. 2025a4 (annual), 2026h2 (interim) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description presents the operation as a read ('Read full page content'), but annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. There is no mention of destructive effects or why the tool is classified as destructive, directly contradicting the description. Annotation Contradiction.
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 organized with a clear summary, strategy, and critical_rules sections and front-loads the core purpose. Some redundancy exists (pageCount limits, market optionality, report types appear in both strategy and critical_rules), so it is not maximally concise.
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?
The tool provides extensive operational context: data availability, workflows, and formatting conventions. However, there is no output schema and the description never explains the returned structure (e.g., page text, page numbers, metadata), leaving a gap for an agent trying to interpret results.
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?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial semantics: startPage is 1-based, pageCount defaults to 5 max 5, report type patterns ('2025a4', '2026h2'), CN-A/HK digit counts, and a warning not to invent padding. This materially improves correct parameter construction.
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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Read full page content from a financial report by page range.' The strategy and critical rules further clarify it is a page-range retrieval tool, distinguishing it from the sibling search tools (financialKeywordSearch searches by keyword; searchCompanyInfo resolves company identities).
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?
Strategy explicitly states when to use each mode: known startPage from keyword/TOC, TOC discovery with startPage=1, and when to call searchCompanyInfo first for unknown company names. Critical rule 5 tells the agent to prefer financialKeywordSearch for specific facts, establishing a clear alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: resolving a company to a stock code, searching for keywords within reports, and reading report pages. There is no functional overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names use camelCase and are descriptive, with searchCompanyInfo and getFinancialReportPages following a verb-noun pattern. financialKeywordSearch is a minor deviation since it reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb-led action.
Three tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose: company lookup, keyword search, and page retrieval form a complete minimal workflow. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
The core workflow of finding a company, searching for facts, and reading report pages is fully covered. The main gap is the lack of a tool to enumerate available reports or report types, but the embedded strategy guidance mostly works around this.