Get fundamental stock information.
Returns company name (CN/EN), exchange, currency, lot size, total/circulating
shares, EPS, EPS TTM, BPS, and dividend yield.
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, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It lists return fields and supported markets but omits details on authentication, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only (obvious from name but not stated).
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, front-loads the purpose, and uses bullet-like formatting for the return fields. No wasted sentences, though it could be slightly more structured.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and 2 parameters with zero description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter details, error information, and output format beyond a list of fields, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
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 description does not explain the 'symbols' or 'type' parameters. The input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving the agent to guess expected format (e.g., comma-separated symbols) and the meaning of the optional 'type' parameter.
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 returns fundamental stock information, lists specific data fields (company name, exchange, currency, etc.), and specifies supported markets (US, Hong Kong, A-shares). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_intraday or get_kline.
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 usage for obtaining fundamental data but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
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.