Real-time Stock MCP Service

get_main_financial_data

Retrieve a company's key financial data as a Markdown table by providing the stock code with exchange suffix.

Instructions

获取公司主要财务数据

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: 公司主要财务数据的Markdown表格

Examples: - get_main_financial_data("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_main_financial_data"
  }
}

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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description states the return format (Markdown table) and provides an example call. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any error conditions, or authentication requirements. With no annotations, more behavioral detail would be beneficial.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is very concise with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples). Every sentence is informative without redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the simple one-parameter input and stated output schema (Markdown table), the description adequately covers usage. However, it lacks detail on what constitutes 'main financial data', which might be ambiguous given the many sibling tools.

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?

The description adds significant value beyond the schema: it specifies the required format (stock code with exchange suffix) and gives an example ('300750.SZ'). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 '获取公司主要财务数据' (get main financial data), indicating the verb and resource. It provides an example showing the expected format. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_financial_ratios or get_financial_summary, which cover specific aspects.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only shows an example call, but lacks context such as when to prefer this over other financial data tools among the many siblings.

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