［台美股題材與高股息］查詢題材股的最新收盤、漲跌幅、成交量、所屬題材與近 60 個交易日收盤。
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"code": "<code>"
},
"name": "stocks__get_stock"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | 股票代號，例：2330 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the shape of the returned data (close, change, volume, theme, 60-day history), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. It says nothing about data staleness, market coverage limits, rate limits, or error behavior when a code is unknown.
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?
A single compact sentence with the scope bracketed up front and the payload listed after, so nothing is buried. The bracketed category label is somewhat redundant with the body text, which keeps it just short of maximal efficiency.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields and the asset scope, which is the right level of detail. It is still incomplete on sibling disambiguation (get_theme_stocks) and on failure behavior for unknown codes.
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?
Only one parameter (code), and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage with an example ('股票代號，例：2330'). The description adds no syntax beyond that, so per the baseline rule for full coverage this sits at 4 rather than 5.
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?
Specific verb (查詢) plus resource (題材股) and an explicit enumeration of the returned fields (latest close, change %, volume, theme, 60 trading-day closes) for Taiwan/US theme and high-dividend stocks. It is clearly a per-stock lookup rather than a theme listing. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling stocks__get_theme_stocks, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus stocks__get_theme_stocks or stocks__list_stock_themes, and no prerequisites (e.g., that a valid ticker code is required). Usage is only inferable from the fact that the single parameter is a stock code.
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.