Resolve a CN-A-share company by 6-digit ticker or Chinese/English name fragment to fetch its financial reports and filings.
Resolve a CN-A-share company by 6-digit ticker or Chinese/English name fragment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker_or_name | Yes | 6-digit ticker ("600519") or name fragment ("贵州茅台" / "MOUTAI"). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.4Does 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 does not state whether the call is read-only, what happens on a miss or an ambiguous name fragment, or how fuzzy matching resolves multiple candidates — meaningful gaps for a resolution tool.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the identifier forms are placed immediately after the verb and resource.
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 not be explained, and the single parameter is fully documented. For a simple lookup this is nearly complete, with only ambiguity/miss behavior left unaddressed.
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 coverage is 100% and the parameter already documents both a 6-digit ticker and a name fragment with examples. The description merely echoes those accepted forms, adding no syntax or matching-rule detail beyond the schema, so 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 ("Resolve") and resource ("company"), plus the accepted identifier forms. The "CN-A-share" qualifier begins to distinguish it from the HK/BSE/SSE/SZSE company siblings, but it never names which sibling to use instead, so differentiation is only implied.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite a crowded sibling family (get_hk_company, get_bse_company, get_sse_company, get_szse_company). The agent is left to infer the routing on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.