Get the trading calendar (trading days and half-days) for a date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market | Yes | Market code: US, HK, or CN | |
| beg_day | Yes | Start date YYYYMMDD within the most recent year, e.g. '20260101' | |
| end_day | Yes | End date YYYYMMDD; query range at most 31 days, e.g. '20260131' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / beg_day / descriptionAdded value: +"Start date YYYYMMDD within the most recent year, e.g. '20260101'"Input schema / properties / end_day / descriptionAdded value: +"End date YYYYMMDD; query range at most 31 days, e.g. '20260131'"Input schema / properties / market / descriptionAdded value: +"Market code: US, HK, or CN"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 usefully discloses the return content, including the half-day distinction, but says nothing about permission requirements, error behavior, or the range/recency constraints (which live only in the schema). Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 sentence with zero waste that front-loads the verb, resource, and payload. Nothing extraneous.
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 simple 3-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description conveys the essential return content. It omits when-to-use context and sibling differentiation, and with no annotations there is nothing covering auth or failure modes, leaving it merely adequate.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents market, beg_day, and end_day in detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema baseline.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get the trading calendar') and even specifies the payload ('trading days and half-days'). However, it does not distinguish itself from near siblings like get_other_calendar or get_trading_sessions, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives or exclusions. The reader gets what the tool returns but nothing about when this tool is the right choice over the calendar/session siblings.
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.