Download one HKEx document by its URL and extract its text and tables.
``link`` must be an HKEx document URL (host ``www1.hkexnews.hk``); any other host is
rejected. With ``extract=True`` the response includes extracted ``document_text``
(truncated) and up to 30 ``tables``; set ``extract=False`` for size/content-type only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link | Yes | HKEx document URL | |
| extract | No | Extract text and tables |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses host rejection, truncation of document_text, a 30-table cap, and the extract=False behavior of returning only size/content-type, giving a clear picture of what happens when the tool is called.
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 three short sentences with the main purpose front-loaded, followed by the most important constraint and the conditional response behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information and there is no filler.
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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, one required), the description covers host validation, response content, and the extract switch. Since there is no output schema, the description sufficiently specifies return values so an agent can invoke the tool correctly.
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 schema already describes both parameters (100% coverage), and the description adds meaningful detail: the exact allowed host for link and the behavioral consequences of setting extract to true or false. This goes beyond the schema without needing to repeat basic parameter names.
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 states a precise action: download a single HKEx document by URL and extract its text and tables. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like get_server_info and search_filings, so an agent can tell which tool to invoke.
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 gives explicit constraints: link must point to www1.hkexnews.hk and any other host is rejected. It also explains when to set extract=True vs extract=False, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use search_filings first to find documents'.
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.