company_equity_pledge基于明确指定的企业名称，查询该企业涉及的股权出质信息，包括登记编号、状态、出质人、质权人、股权出质登记日期、出质人证件号码、质权人证件号码、股权出质目标公司、股权出质数额等。
Pricing: {"unit": "credits", "billing_model": "per_run", "per_run": 0.2}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 指定返回第几页结果，从 1 开始，默认 1；与 limit 配合使用。 | |
| limit | No | 指定单次请求最多返回的记录数，默认 20，最大 100。 | |
| company_name | Yes | 企业名称（必填）。用于查询该企业的股权出质信息。示例：通威股份有限公司 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (only openWorldHint: true), with no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint. The description uses the verb '查询' (query), implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. It adds some context by listing the output fields but does not go beyond what a query tool typically discloses. Since annotations don't cover safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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, stating the purpose and key output fields in one sentence, followed by pricing information. It is front-loaded with the core query scope. The inclusion of pricing metadata inside the description is somewhat extraneous but not verbose. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient, earning a 4.
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 straightforward read query with an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose and fields. It lacks detailed guidance on pagination or edge cases, but these are largely covered by the schema and output schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool, though it could benefit from a note on alternative tools. A score of 4 reflects its adequacy without being exhaustive.
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 100%: all three parameters (page, limit, company_name) have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, other than mentioning the company_name is required. Baseline is 3 for full coverage, and no extra value is added.
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 tool queries equity pledge information for a specified company, listing detailed fields like registration number, pledgor, pledgee, etc. It distinguishes from siblings like company_equity_freeze by focusing on '股权出质' (pledge) rather than '冻结' (freeze). The verb '查询' and resource are explicit and unambiguous.
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 specifies that it requires a '明确指定的企业名称' (clearly specified company name), implying usage when the company name is known. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternative suggestions, such as distinguishing from company_equity_freeze or other company-specific queries. The guidance is implicit but not comprehensive.
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.
大量工具功能高度重叠，例如chain_*和park_*系列均为按不同筛选条件查询企业列表或数量，只是参数不同却拆分为独立工具；enterprise_change_*系列同样针对不同指标逐一拆分。虽然描述清楚各自区别，但代理面对198个工具时极易选错，且许多工具本质应合并为带参数的单一接口。
多数工具采用snake_case加领域前缀（如chain_、park_、company_、gov_data_、poi_data_），但存在明显变体如company_certlist、company_randomin_spection（拼写异常）、corporate_exception_report、due_diligence_report、sg_chokepoint等，混用英文抽象名词与动词短语，整体模式可辨认但不统一。
工具总数高达198个，远超合理范围（即使复杂领域也应控制在25个以内）。大量工具是同一逻辑的不同参数变体（如list/num、不同资质条件），完全可以通过参数化减少数量，严重冗余，代理难以有效浏览和选择。
工具覆盖领域广泛，包括企业信息、产业链分析、园区统计、地区宏观、POI明细、供应链风险、关税计算等，基本覆盖了商业数据查询的主要需求。虽缺少更新/删除等操作（但作为查询服务器可接受），且部分细分领域可能有遗漏，但整体功能较为完整。