Retrieve metadata and PDF URL for a specific CNINFO announcement using its ID, optionally with a company hint to narrow the lookup.
Fetch one CNINFO announcement's metadata + PDF URL by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker_or_name | No | company hint to narrow the lookup (recommended). | |
| announcement_id | Yes | CNINFO announcementId. |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the output shape (metadata + PDF URL), implying a read-only fetch, but says nothing about auth requirements, failure modes when the id is invalid, or rate limits. Adequate but thin for an unannotated 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 no filler; the verb, resource, and lookup key all land immediately.
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 exposition, and the description states the resource and key. The only gap is not telling the agent where the required announcement_id comes from or noting the optional ticker_or_name narrowing hint.
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 both parameters are already documented in the schema (including the 'recommended' hint on ticker_or_name). The description only reinforces that lookup is 'by id' and adds nothing beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.
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 (Fetch), a specific resource (one CNINFO announcement's metadata + PDF URL), and a lookup key (by id). The word 'one' implicitly contrasts with list_filings, but no sibling tool is named, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.
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, even though siblings like list_filings are the obvious way to obtain the id this tool requires. The agent gets no condition under which to pick this tool over the listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.