company_tax_violation基于明确指定的企业名称，查询该企业涉及的税收违法信息，包括案件上报日期、案件性质、违法事实、处罚情况等。
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）。用于查询该企业的税收违法记录。示例：通威股份有限公司 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds output field context beyond the minimal openWorldHint annotation, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or potential side effects. It is a query tool (safe), but no explicit read-only statement is made.
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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes the pricing model. There is no redundant or filler content.
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?
With an output schema present and a simple query tool, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and key result fields. However, it lacks explicit notes about behavior when no records are found or any special result handling.
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?
The input schema already fully describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond restating that company_name is the query basis.
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 that the tool queries tax violation information for a specific company, listing specific result fields (case reporting date, nature, illegal facts, penalties). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like company_illegal or company_punish by focusing on tax-specific violations.
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 implies use when a specific company name is known and tax violation data is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or mention exclusions. No alternative tools are referenced.
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.