Real-time Stock MCP Service

get_growth_comparison

Retrieves growth comparison data for a stock and outputs it as a Markdown table. Provide a stock code with exchange suffix to compare growth metrics.

Instructions

获取成长性比较数据

Args: stock_code: 股票代码，要在数字后加上交易所代码，格式如300750.SZ

Returns: 成长性比较数据的Markdown表格

Examples: - get_growth_comparison("300750.SZ")

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "stock_code": "<stock_code>"
    },
    "name": "get_growth_comparison"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`stock_code`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1May 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided. The description only states that it returns a Markdown table. It does not disclose behavior such as read-only nature, error handling, rate limits, or what happens with invalid stock codes. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with a clear structure: purpose, args, returns, and example. It is front-loaded with the Chinese phrase. However, it could be more structured with bullet points for clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists (not shown), the description need not detail return values, but it does mention a Markdown table. One parameter is adequately explained. However, it lacks context on data sources, update frequency, or error scenarios, making it minimally complete for a simple tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% (no param descriptions in schema). The description explains the stock_code parameter format: '需要在数字后加上交易所代码，格式如300750.SZ' and provides an example. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states '获取成长性比较数据' which translates to 'get growth comparison data'. This specifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_valuation_comparison or get_industry_profit_comparison. However, it lacks detail on what exactly is compared (e.g., historical vs peer).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_valuation_comparison or get_financial_ratios. The agent has no context for selecting this tool over similar ones.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.