searchCompanyInfoSearch listed companies by name or stock code. Resolves a company to stockCode and market.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | Result size, max 100, default 5 | |
| query | Yes | Company name or stock code | |
| market | Yes | Market: 'CN-A' | 'HK'. Required. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description presents this as a read-only search operation, but the annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. This directly contradicts the described behavior, so the definition cannot be trusted regarding side effects. 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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose statement followed by compact strategy and critical-rules blocks. Every sentence carries distinct information, and there is no filler or redundancy.
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?
For a three-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, this description is complete enough for correct invocation: it specifies query semantics, required market values, code formats, return fields, and how the tool fits into the larger workflow. Nothing needed for calling it 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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds useful semantics beyond the schema: query can be a company name or stock code, market must be CN-A or HK with one market per call, code formats per market are specified, and the return array fields are listed. These additions genuinely help an agent invoke the tool correctly.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Search listed companies by name or stock code' and the resolution goal: 'Resolves a company to stockCode and market.' The strategy block clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools by positioning it as the mandatory first lookup step.
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?
Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this FIRST when the user mentions a company by name or a short/unknown code.' It also explains what to do with the result, names downstream sibling tools, and provides a fallback hint for language mismatch. This is strong routing guidance.
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.