Get comprehensive market metrics and valuation data for stocks.
Returns: price, change, volume, turnover, YTD change, turnover rate, market cap,
capital flow, PE (TTM), PB ratio, dividend yield, 5/10/180-day price change rates.
Supported: US stocks, Hong Kong stocks, A-shares.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| symbols | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. It only describes the output data, not the behavior of the tool.
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 (two sentences) but the structure could be improved. The first sentence is a generic statement, and the second is a bullet list of returns. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information.
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?
The description thoroughly lists the return values, compensating somewhat for the lack of an output schema. However, it does not explain the input parameters or provide usage context beyond supported markets, leaving gaps in completeness.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the parameters (type and symbols). It does not explain what 'type' or 'symbols' represent or how to format them.
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's purpose: 'Get comprehensive market metrics and valuation data for stocks.' It lists specific data points, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_capital_flow (focused solely on capital flow) or get_kline (price history).
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 when to use it (to get broad market metrics) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. It mentions supported markets (US, HK, A-shares) but no exclusion criteria.
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.