查询指定日期是否为A股交易日，自动处理节假日和周末 何时使用: 周末/节假日前后判断今日是否交易日。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | 必填。查询日期，支持 YYYY-MM-DD 或 YYYYMMDD。 | |
| format | No | content[0].text：默认1行 headline；markdown=完整 markdown 表格；json=完整 JSON。 | |
| detailLevel | No | 档位：默认 standard（Agent 可计算标准字段）；summary=压缩摘要；raw=全字段+原始数据。 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| meta | No | ||
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / detailLevel / descriptionPrevious value: -"输出详细度（不传=standard，返回 Agent 可计算标准字段）。summary=压缩摘要；raw=全字段+原始数据。"New value: +"档位：默认 standard（Agent 可计算标准字段）；summary=压缩摘要；raw=全字段+原始数据。"Input schema / properties / format / descriptionPrevious value: -"content[0].text 形态。通常不传=1 行 headline；auction_market_scan / auction_theme_strength 在 standard/raw 档默认直接返回 JSON 明细。markdown=完整 markdown 表格；json=完整 JSON。"New value: +"content[0].text：默认1行 headline；markdown=完整 markdown 表格；json=完整 JSON。"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {},
+ "meta": {},
+ "success": {}
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — holidays and weekends are handled automatically — but says nothing about supported date ranges, timezone, or edge cases.
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?
Two short clauses: purpose first, usage trigger second. No filler, well front-loaded, and not one word wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the read-only annotations cover safety. Purpose and trigger are covered; only minor operational details (valid date range, timezone) are absent, which is acceptable for this simple tool.
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 required 'date' parameter and the format/detailLevel options are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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: query whether a given date is an A-share trading day, with automatic holiday/weekend handling. That clearly separates it from calendar-ish siblings such as macro_calendar or stock_event_calendar, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 '何时使用' clause gives an explicit trigger: judging whether today is a trading day around weekends/holidays. There is clear context for when to reach for it, but no when-not-to-use or named alternative.
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.