fetch以 search 回傳的 id 取該筆的完整內容（id／title／text／url／metadata）。A string which is a unique identifier for the search document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | A string which is a unique identifier for the search document. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description has to carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the output fields, and the verb '取' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or describe error behavior for invalid ids. This is adequate but not rich.
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 first sentence is front-loaded and informative, but the second sentence is a verbatim copy of the schema's parameter description, adding no new information. This redundancy is wasteful, so it cannot earn a higher score despite the overall brevity.
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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately enumerates the return fields. It also specifies the input source. It omits edge-case behavior such as missing ids, but for a simple single-parameter fetch tool this is not a critical gap. The lack of annotations makes some safety context implicit rather than explicit.
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 schema already documents the id parameter with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the id originates from a search result and by associating it with the complete content fields. The second sentence, however, redundantly repeats the schema description, slightly reducing the added value.
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 uses a specific verb '取得' (retrieve) with a clear resource: the full content of a record identified by the id returned from search. It lists the returned fields (id/title/text/url/metadata), which distinguishes this from sibling search and data lookup tools.
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?
It explicitly states the id must come from a prior search call ('以 search 回傳的 id'), establishing the intended workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the search-then-fetch context is clear enough for an agent to choose appropriately.
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.
Most tools have clear boundaries, but there is notable overlap between data_series and etf_price_history/fund_nav_history, since all three can provide time-series data. market_sentiment and taiwan_market_overview also both expose Taiwan sentiment, creating potential selection ambiguity.
The data_* tools follow a clear prefix pattern, but the rest mix noun-style names (fx_rates, market_sentiment), object-action names (etf_lookup, fund_lookup), and generic verbs (search, fetch). The names are readable and understandable, but the overall convention is inconsistent.
At 15 tools, the count is at the upper edge of the ideal range and mostly reasonable for a Taiwan finance data server. However, several domain-specific wrappers duplicate capabilities already available through the generic data_* tools, so the set feels slightly heavier than necessary.
The generic data catalog plus data_point/data_query/data_series/data_table provides broad coverage for read-only financial data, and the domain tools cover ETFs, funds, FX, market overview, sentiment, and climate indicators. Minor gaps remain, such as no explicit Taiwan stock-specific lookup or price history tool, but the search and generic data layers partially compensate.